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!
Since you ASKED for it! Making Survivors MORE than just SKINS
Comments
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape the passive ability for David needs to be, David has 5% chance to withstand a hit per survivor nearly to him, and 10% less grunts of pain.0
-
If they do this, your way should be how. Well done. I'd definitely keep playing Kate.1
-
Those saying that Nea +5% is OP are not paying attention. He did not say to add it to run speed, he said to add it to walking speed. Run speed would not change. Last I checked, nobody loops while walking around. 5% to walking speed is in no way having a negative impact on the killer.
1 -
Love the idea and my friends and I have been thinking about something along these lines like slight buffs in certain areas for survivors depending on what they're good at.
1 -
Alternatively one could add a fifht "orange" perk slot in which survivors (and killers hiehue) could put 1 of their own teachable perks.
Other than that, arguanly alance out passive strenghts with weaknesses.
Btw boilover rank 2 on kate by default0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NoShinyPony said:
I'm not a big fan of giving survivors their own specific abilities. In the end, one ability is stronger than the other and therefore one survivor would be played more often than the others.One ability is not always stronger. They offer different routes to milking their possible value. How survivors utilise this value and how killers can lower it is a point of opportunity for both sides.
Sure, we already have a lot of Claudettes at the moment but still a lot of the other survs are getting played. I'm afraid that would change and lobbys would look more monotonous.
There could actually be less of Claudettes indeed, dependent on the buffs, but there is little evidence that minuscule buffs would alter their choice in any circumstance.
In the end, we can only make assumptions about what would happen if your suggestion would be implemented. There would only be evidence after an actual implementation.
0 -
These are all pretty good, aside from Feng. Her's should be something like vault 5% faster when uninjured or something like that.1
-
I'm not too keen on giving too many passive buffs to survivors currently.
Another idea would be to make the characters function better with their own perks (like a fourth tier), but again, I don't think the current survivor state needs it.0 -
@Bravo0413 said:
Yeah I dont see this working... survivors without perks already can go through trials.. if these types of abilities come into play it'll be super easy modeI'm sorry but I believe you are misunderstanding the point of this post.
What survivor passives would do is make every survivor different from each other not only visually, but functionally.
It would make each survivor unique, and not only for their skin.
And the numbers are very small, only having a small impact on certain situations (they are enough tho, I do not believe the numbers should be any bigger, I feel they are very close to perfection).
Trust me, survivors without perks wouldn't go through trials any easier if these passives were in the game.
In fact, you wouldn't see 50% of survivors playing Claudette (the least visible character) so killers would have an easier time spotting survivors. AND people would play different survivors more often, so you won't have all 4 survivors playing an "optimal" build all the time (simply because most people don't have every perk unlocked on every survivor).English is not my first language and I'm very tired right now so sorry if this is hard to understand.
Btw: I really like what you did OP. The idea is excellent and I really like the passives you offered for each character, even if the numbers are not final. Good job
.1 -
In the end, we can only make assumptions about what would happen if your suggestion would be implemented. There would only be evidence after an actual implementation.
We have some reference to what it might be like; Imagine the differences between killer... and now imagine their differences being 10x as small as they in fact are (to compensate for the fact that these buffs are pretty insignificant compared to perks/unique killer abilities).
With seeing all killers a decent amount and imagining the buffs as 0.15% of a decent perk (botany = 33%, claudette has 5%), I think we really won't see that much of the same characters.
Not only can you win the match without a perk; you can easily do without 0.15% of 1 perk (:
0 -
@weirdkid5 said:
These are all pretty good, aside from Feng. Her's should be something like vault 5% faster when uninjured or something like that.That request has come up 2 times I think now. Added it to her passive.
0 -
I would like to see survivors be more than skins, but at the same time killers would likely need a buff in response to these innate passives considering the synergy and stackable effects some of them have.
Side notes though, Quentin's is 12m or so off of Plunderer's, maybe a bit too powerful. I love Adam's because it would actually make Autodidact somewhat useful. Always loved Adam's perks for some reason. As a Jake main I like the passive you gave to him as well, but how would it stack with Saboteur?
I'd assume it's multiplicative, so 0.50 * 1.20 = 0.6 * 1.15 = 69%, effectively 19% increased sabotage speed without a toolbox if playing Jake with Saboteur.
Either way, I enjoy the idea. Always interesting to see stuff like this.0 -
The reason why I don't see Quentin's chest aura reading is because chests are inferior to blood-web items. I didn't mention it here but the way I see things structured is as if the code gives you +20m aura-reading on chests and turns things off when it's 0. Meaning if you'd run plunderers on top, you'd have them as addition, not 1 overriding the other. Maybe I can slide that in somewhere.
Regarding Jake: So you have a base 20% sabotage speed of what is declared as the "standard sabotaging speed". Anything higher than that overrides the 20%. The sabotage boost mentioned right after multiplies with your current sabotage speed, not the standard sabotaging speed;
(With saboteur; Overrides the 20% and; base-Sabotage-Speed * 0.5 * 1.15 = 57.5% sabotaging speed of the base-speed.I hope that explains it (:
0 -
Makes sense. Would definitely motivate me to sabo crap for fun again even if it is just a 7.5% increase XD
1 -
I've made a post VERY similar to this one.
1 -
I have some suggestions regarding over-all balance and certain tools that allow us to easily shift the bar of balance;
Possible plan laid out in both;https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/34870/solution-to-the-death-efficiency-problem-solving-the-games-biggest-issue/p1
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/43554/the-future-of-dbd/p1As for this post, it's only relevant that the buffs are balanced among each other (and the rest mentioned in the End-Note). We assume something like this not to be put into the game without any opposite-faction response, even if in this case the changes are minimal.
0 -
@BigBadPiggy said:
I've made a post VERY similar to this one.Link?
0 -
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/36249/make-survivors-have-roles-to-play#latestAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@BigBadPiggy said:
I've made a post VERY similar to this one.Link?
0 -
@BigBadPiggy said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@BigBadPiggy said:
I've made a post VERY similar to this one.
Link?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/36249/make-survivors-have-roles-to-play#latest
By the amount of attention this got, i think we're not the only ones with the idea.
Some believing this change is meant as a net-buff to survivors because'd we'd believe they are to weak.
Some others overstating the effects of having 0.15% of a perk for free on your character choice.
But the majority I think, like us, all asked the question: "What is the inherent difference between survivors", and got an unsatisfying answer.Post edited by AlwaysInAGoodShape on1 -
Great concept also because the killer kind of has this already.1
-
I always thought that it was weird that survivor perks weren't more effective with their survivor aka urban on Nea Bae being 100% and others maybe 90% max and self care 75% on claudette and stuff like that. these changes seem nice some are very minor but a good start for sure!
1 -
Man this guy and his ideas are too good to be true.2
-
I doubt they’d add survivor passives but IF they do, I’d only be down for it if they enable a way to allow you to swap passives between survivors.
The whole reason they don’t do passives on survivors is they want you to be able to play whatever survivor you want with whatever build. With the suggested racials, I would feel compelled to take Claudette if I want to use a healing build or Meg if I want to be the one chased a lot. People already play Claudette/Meg/Nea/Feng a lot only because they’re harder to see and this could just compound that. Maybe make it so once you prestige that character you unlock their passive bonus to be used by any other survivor?
I’m fine with their story being the reason they have their 3 perks and nothing more.0 -
@GhostEuant said:
I doubt they’d add survivor passives but IF they do, I’d only be down for it if they enable a way to allow you to swap passives between survivors.The whole reason they don’t do passives on survivors is they want you to be able to play whatever survivor you want with whatever build. With the suggested racials, I would feel compelled to take Claudette if I want to use a healing build or Meg if I want to be the one chased a lot. People already play Claudette/Meg/Nea/Feng a lot only because they’re harder to see and this could just compound that. Maybe make it so once you prestige that character you unlock their passive bonus to be used by any other survivor?
I’m fine with their story being the reason they have their 3 perks and nothing more.
That would undermine the idea behind making characters unique. There's a very specific reason why these micro buffs are the way they are;
They are big enough to give someone a unique character.
They are small enough to be ignorable.Is the claudette really needed when running a healing build? After all, all it will save you ≈ 4.5 seconds after 3 full heals.
Or are the perks just that more crucial? Say decisive strike, one that can easily buy your team 30+ seconds of time for each survivor alive?
You can still really play whatever character you want with any build.0 -
A character's personality is reflected by their personal perks. If our goal is to make them different from each other, why not increase their personal perks? You could use a lot of ideas from the list above (like Meg's SB takes less time or Claudette's Botany heals faster) to enhance the character's personal perks. Only that character could reach this fourth/mastered tier perk, and may add an additional function to the perk. Let me know what you think, would love to hear some feedback
1 -
I must say this is the first time I see this suggestion made right. I like how you thought well about the survivors personalities and abilities.
The only thing I would change is Nea's reduction of fall stuns... this often can open new loop possibilities and that's what makes Balanced Landing so good, giving it to her would give her a huge advantage in chases compared to other survivors. Personally I would change it to reduce the falling sound, which fits with her being sneaky and is more stealth-oriented.
Also Kate's passive is basically Boil Over tier 2, I think it should be toned down a bit.1 -
@White_Owl said:
I must say this is the first time I see this suggestion made right. I like how you thought well about the survivors personalities and abilities.
The only thing I would change is Nea's reduction of fall stuns... this often can open new loop possibilities and that's what makes Balanced Landing so good, giving it to her would give her a huge advantage in chases compared to other survivors. Personally I would change it to reduce the falling sound, which fits with her being sneaky and is more stealth-oriented.
Also Kate's passive is basically Boil Over tier 2, I think it should be toned down a bit.Changed the Nea fall-stun-time to partly reducing the noise.
Regarding Kate: I have a measurement to decide how strong a base-buff should be allowed to be. To take Claudette as an example; her 5% is about 15% of botany knowledge, meaning you'd need 6 full Claudette to get 1 single botany in base-buffs.
Of course, perks like Boil Over are significantly weaker. To not make the same balancing mistakes, we cannot apply the 15% rule to Boil Over. Instead we need the 15% rule for Kate to be 15% of the power of Botany knowledge. That is why this base-buff in particular is bigger in % of Boil Over, but that's a problem in the perk itself; not in our balance among base-buffs.
0 -
No.
0 -
Every time this is proposed the exact same awnser is provided: if you added this everyone would play Claudette, Meg, Nea, or Kate. (And maybe Jeff) There's no reason to make someone's favorite Survivor pointless after people grinding countless Bloodpoints to level them up and also possibly spent Shards/real money to buy cosmetics for them.
1 -
Similar concept to a thread I started a while ago.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21841/free-perks-for-everyone
1 -
Thats only a valid argument for someone that can't measure significance.TigerKirby215 said:Every time this is proposed the exact same awnser is provided: if you added this everyone would play Claudette, Meg, Nea, or Kate. (And maybe Jeff) There's no reason to make someone's favorite Survivor pointless after people grinding countless Bloodpoints to level them up and also possibly spent Shards/real money to buy cosmetics for them.
No survivor becomes pointless.0 -
I think you’re underestimating the number of people who will think exactly the way I presented. If people see a positive value, no matter how small, in using a specific character over another, they will feel compelled to use that specific character and feel bad if they don’t. You’re right, the math works out where these are small numbers but the perceived value will always trump reality.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@GhostEuant said:
I doubt they’d add survivor passives but IF they do, I’d only be down for it if they enable a way to allow you to swap passives between survivors.The whole reason they don’t do passives on survivors is they want you to be able to play whatever survivor you want with whatever build. With the suggested racials, I would feel compelled to take Claudette if I want to use a healing build or Meg if I want to be the one chased a lot. People already play Claudette/Meg/Nea/Feng a lot only because they’re harder to see and this could just compound that. Maybe make it so once you prestige that character you unlock their passive bonus to be used by any other survivor?
I’m fine with their story being the reason they have their 3 perks and nothing more.
That would undermine the idea behind making characters unique. There's a very specific reason why these micro buffs are the way they are;
They are big enough to give someone a unique character.
They are small enough to be ignorable.Is the claudette really needed when running a healing build? After all, all it will save you ≈ 4.5 seconds after 3 full heals.
Or are the perks just that more crucial? Say decisive strike, one that can easily buy your team 30+ seconds of time for each survivor alive?
You can still really play whatever character you want with any build.
In addition, imagine the conversations from the truly competitive group in the community. “Welcome to Dead by Daylight. If you want to heal, play Claudette. If you want to find totems play Tapp. Ew don’t pick Dwight, his bonuses aren’t good enough.” Then the new person either says the same things to others OR quits because they don’t feel they can play who they want. You and I may not think that way but enough people will to cause a problem.1 -
Fair point.
Though do consider this; currently if you meet a truly purely competitive(/high tier tournament) group, they will always play Claudette. You are already compelled to pick 1 character (Claudette) and this time, who you pick cannot variate based on play-style.
I'd argue that even on this level, it might actually create more diversity than it'd create sameness.
0 -
This just sounds like free perks.
1 -
@scorpio said:
This just sounds like free perks.Must have been an auditory hallucination.
0 -
Others have said it but it cannot be stressed enough:
The thread creator has several threads running on this forum that in most cases seem to propose features or elements that would actually hurt the game if they were to be implemented as suggested.
I have a very difficult time telling if he is serious about this thread or if this is just another troll thread.
In any case characters should just be for the cosmetics.
Players should be able to choose any character they identify with in combination with the perks they like.
Perks should be able to be unlocked without playing a specific character by gaining character independent perk points that can be spent in a more general skill tree.
There are so many great cosmetics out there. New players should be able to choose the character they think looks cool and not be forced to endure 40 level of Claudette, Meg, Nea, David to unlock those perks that are considered meta.
0 -
This thread is not satire.
This is satire;It should be relatively easy to distinguish between the 2.
In any case characters should just be for the cosmetics.
Players should be able to choose any character they identify with in combination with the perks they like.
You can already choose whatever character you want to play with. The buffs are so minor that they generally won't make a difference. If you dare to play with anything but Decisive Strike, Self-Care, Borrowed Time and Unbreakable, then you shouldn't be worried about this post, since picking 1 single slightly less meta perk is already a bigger disadvantage than missing out on getting the optimal buff.
If you play as competitively where you'd believe they'd start to make a difference, your choice is already stripped away from you anyways; you'll be playing claudette.You prove not being able to measure significance.
New players should be able to choose the character they think looks cool and not be forced to endure 40 level of Claudette, Meg, Nea, David to unlock those perks that are considered meta.
The level 40 problem is more of a problem with perk tier and teachable distribution than any inherent problems with the blood-web. Killers also have to endure this, and solving that is a thread of its own. (multiple people have already covered bits of it).
and not be forced to endure 40 level of Claudette, Meg, Nea, David to unlock those perks that are considered meta.
Upon reading it twice, I'm not even completely sure if it has anything to do with this post.
0 -
I have also talked about it in a discussion I opened yesterday. I was also proposing Survivor Based animations. Go check it out if you wanna know more. I dont want to post it all in here again :P
Post edited by AokiiSenpaii on0 -
@AokiiSenpaii said:
I have also talked about it in a discussion I opened yesterday. I was also proposing Survivor Based animations. Go check it out if you wanna know more. I dont want to post it all in here again :PEdit it your link. I'll make a section at the bottom of my post, showing all related topics as evidence how prominent the topic of unique survivors really is.
0
