Behaviors design ethic is crap.
"We don't design Killers to be viable, we design them to be fun" And there is the heart of the problem. What IS fun? In order to base your entire design scheme around it, it must have a objective definition right?
Except it doesn't. Because fun is subjective, not objective. Which means Behavior is ramming what THEY think is fun down our throats.
"Not every Killers will be viable at rank 1." Ya think? Nurse, Hillbilly, and arguably Myers are playable at rank 1 and actually WIN. And what about rank 1 killers? Because of your design ethic they can't enjoy the full line of killers. They are stuck with less than a handful to actually be successful and not be tea bagged every step of the game.
What about players like me who don't enjoy Nurse or Billy that much? Am I doomed to be stuck mid rank because I enjoy lower tier Killers like Trapper but can't be successful because he's weak?
In the end there is one thing that 99% of gamers find objectively fun. Winning. So if we have to slug through a stressful game and not even have the chance at that....what's the point?
Comments
-
Every gaming company provides us with their version of fun. They get that creative freedom because it is their game. We decide if we play it or not. This is a great chapter for DBD and the continued upgrades that they bring to this game are welcome and appreciated.
As a rank one Killer, I enjoy playing all killers. You don't need to speak for myself or the rest of the high rank killers that play more than Hillbilly or Nurse. No need lumping us all together. That is like saying that every single rank one survivor runs DS always. Which I guarantee as a false statement.
3 -
LULS
Wowzer... I guess the OP's fun is more important then everyone else.
That is why they are the Developer... They think outside the box and try to think of the majority... What will the majority overall find fun.
That is why you still play your computer in the basement with mom and dad upstairs. You only think of yourself.
Don't find it fun.. Don't play.
3 -
I play console... and Nurse is extremely frustrating on console. She just is. So I never play her. Ever.
I don't play Huntress much... or Spirit too much either... but everyone else I do.
The design of the killers are great. They are well done. You just don't like it personally.
The Legion is a bit weaker than he needs to be sure... but take the punches and roll with them. He's fun to play.
2 -
It seems like there are a lot of misunderstandings between devs and community. The devs don't get what the community wants at times, yeah. On the other hand, some feedback is formulated in a way that makes me understand why there's a disconnection.
Regarding this specific issue, I think most people aren't asking for another Billy or Nurse. The last stream made it seem like the devs got that impression, but that's not the case. It's not necessary for a killer to be THAT good to be fun. But it's also not fun if a killer feels like, despite a fun concept, you are very limited in your opportunity to win games. So while nobody needs S+ Tier, I personally think it would be a good aim to develope killers around the strength of Myers or Huntress, maybe updated Spirit or Clown. These are competitive and fun - but not overpowered. It's okay that older killers aren't all in that category, but newer killers should rather be in that area than with Wraith, Trapper or... Freddy.
1 -
@Navydivea said:
"We don't design Killers to be viable, we design them to be fun" And there is the heart of the problem. What IS fun? In order to base your entire design scheme around it, it must have a objective definition right?Except it doesn't. Because fun is subjective, not objective. Which means Behavior is ramming what THEY think is fun down our throats.
"Not every Killers will be viable at rank 1." Ya think? Nurse, Hillbilly, and arguably Myers are playable at rank 1 and actually WIN. And what about rank 1 killers? Because of your design ethic they can't enjoy the full line of killers. They are stuck with less than a handful to actually be successful and not be tea bagged every step of the game.
What about players like me who don't enjoy Nurse or Billy that much? Am I doomed to be stuck mid rank because I enjoy lower tier Killers like Trapper but can't be successful because he's weak?
In the end there is one thing that 99% of gamers find objectively fun. Winning. So if we have to slug through a stressful game and not even have the chance at that....what's the point?
This man gets it^
I just don't like playing Billy or Nurse. Their kits are boring for me. I like my Boy Trapper and then my lady Huntress. So instead of playing to win, I play to have fun with what I can gratify myself with rather than the game since this game punishes you for being killer. So as Huntress, I take gratification and fun from the awesome hatchets I land and with Trapper, I count how many ankles I break. To try and play this game competitively as Killer is literal madness since no matter how high your skill is, it hits a cieling made by the game itself while the reward factor is through the roof for survivors when all they mainly do is run circles around pieces of wood and then hold M1 and press space bar for 1 minute and 20 seconds.0 -
@Navydivea said:
"We don't design Killers to be viable, we design them to be fun" And there is the heart of the problem. What IS fun? In order to base your entire design scheme around it, it must have a objective definition right?Except it doesn't. Because fun is subjective, not objective. Which means Behavior is ramming what THEY think is fun down our throats.
"Not every Killers will be viable at rank 1." Ya think? Nurse, Hillbilly, and arguably Myers are playable at rank 1 and actually WIN. And what about rank 1 killers? Because of your design ethic they can't enjoy the full line of killers. They are stuck with less than a handful to actually be successful and not be tea bagged every step of the game.
What about players like me who don't enjoy Nurse or Billy that much? Am I doomed to be stuck mid rank because I enjoy lower tier Killers like Trapper but can't be successful because he's weak?
In the end there is one thing that 99% of gamers find objectively fun. Winning. So if we have to slug through a stressful game and not even have the chance at that....what's the point?
Oh grow up. Your not forced to play the game
1 -
Bhvr gave us statistics on this before, and their numbers came to an 80% chance of a victim in your lobby running DS. sure that's not 100% but close enough to make your comparison shakeyOakLestat said:That is like saying that every single rank one survivor runs DS always. Which I guarantee as a false statement.
2 -
I'm not saying every killer should be the same "tier" (I hate lists), but some can have buffs that can MAKE them more fun to play while making them better. The one constant I can think is letting Trapper re-arm traps on the ground. It would make him better and make him more fun to play. If you can could balance like that I think both sides would be happy.
0 -
The survkid hordes are attacking this thread! Prepare the forces!
2 -
They never said it's about the killers fun...
Legion just proves that the devs care about survivors fun. Since he's exactly what survivors want from a killer.
Someone who gives the thrill of the chase, without being a real threat.
Someone who can't tunnel.
Someone who can be looped for ages.
Legion is a survivor mains wet dream.5 -
@Tsulan said:
They never said it's about the killers fun...Legion just proves that the devs care about survivors fun. Since he's exactly what survivors want from a killer.
Someone who gives the thrill of the chase, without being a real threat.
Someone who can't tunnel.
Someone who can be looped for ages.Legion is a survivor mains wet dream.
But then again, he's not.
1 -
Legion literally just badgers survivors to death how is that even remotely fun?
2 -
But but people on here said nobody uses it anymore!! So it MUST be true!!azazer said:
Bhvr gave us statistics on this before, and their numbers came to an 80% chance of a victim in your lobby running DS. sure that's not 100% but close enough to make your comparison shakeyOakLestat said:That is like saying that every single rank one survivor runs DS always. Which I guarantee as a false statement.
0 -
I was a rank 1 pig before. I’m about to be a rank 1 legion now. I guess not every killer is easy to play for many. This is an accessibility issue more than a balancing one in my opinion.Navydivea said:"We don't design Killers to be viable, we design them to be fun" And there is the heart of the problem. What IS fun? In order to base your entire design scheme around it, it must have a objective definition right?
Except it doesn't. Because fun is subjective, not objective. Which means Behavior is ramming what THEY think is fun down our throats.
"Not every Killers will be viable at rank 1." Ya think? Nurse, Hillbilly, and arguably Myers are playable at rank 1 and actually WIN. And what about rank 1 killers? Because of your design ethic they can't enjoy the full line of killers. They are stuck with less than a handful to actually be successful and not be tea bagged every step of the game.
What about players like me who don't enjoy Nurse or Billy that much? Am I doomed to be stuck mid rank because I enjoy lower tier Killers like Trapper but can't be successful because he's weak?
In the end there is one thing that 99% of gamers find objectively fun. Winning. So if we have to slug through a stressful game and not even have the chance at that....what's the point?
0
