Basic Options As Perks
Why is DBD afraid to just add basic video game options into the settings menu like FOV settings and shove them into perks?
Comments
-
Because "it would possibly make immersing less affective" and "balance around how much the killer can see". Like idk how the killer fov can affect how X will work mid game but bhvr things I guess.
4 -
I think they think everyone needs to be on the exact same playing field unless you're up a whole perks lot for it.
0 -
I mean it does let you see things you wouldn't have without it.
4 -
QoL and accessibility should NEVER be locked behind a perk.
20 -
That is not really a good argument for something that should be an accessibility option without hindering how you want to play the game (aka running 4 perks you want to and not 3 and 1 to get rid of motion sickness). It's literally embarrassing how bhvr put an accessibility thing as a perk. Basically removing some of the players agency.
6 -
Yeah it should be player choice. And not be forced into perks. No other game I've played does this. If people want to play with a more restricting FOV because they like it, that's on them. If others want to see more then they should be allowed to without using 1 of 4 precious perk slots.
5 -
There's good cause to restrict how much players can affect their own FoV, but I do agree that it should never be on a perk.
In my opinion, the settings menu should have a toggle for whether you want default FoV, or Shadowborn FoV, and the perk can be reworked to do something else entirely. That way the problem can be addressed for people who are affected by it and need the perk, without needing to sacrifice their loadout slots.
4 -
Guys there is a good argument here but FOV isnt it. You can go more restrictive if you want for some reason but giving more fov is really really good on killers that go into fatigue like nurse or blight.
Is more fov good enough to warrant a perk? I dont think so, but its not so free that you should just get it as an option.
The solution here is buffing worthless perks or combining them into ones with more worth. For example, lightborn plus shadowborn would actually be a pretty good perk while still being worse than most slowdown perks we have today imo.
1 -
Agreed even if it was slightly higher than Shadowborn or hell even if it was only Shadowborn fov and no better. A slider between what we have now and that would be nice.
1 -
This games shouldn't be so competitive where FOV is a perk.
1 -
Its much better if you can just adjust your settings to get advantages right?
1 -
It's play choice. Again, it shouldn't be that competitive. Even more competitive game allow it. DBD should not just be a random exception.
4 -
Again, as long as its a free advantage to turn it up, its not an option that should be allowed.
0 -
Then why are there sensitivity options? Those are no different.
7 -
I agree that the game shouldn't be so competitive where fov changes are locked behind perks, but this argument just ain't it, sensitivity has been a base mechanic of games since 1993.
0 -
They are completely different. Sensitivity doesnt correlate to be an advantage if you turn them to one side. Its just an individual matter on what you like and can handle. FOV is just an advantage.
0 -
Both are preferences. Sure they do give an advantage. Both of them do. But that does not matter. Games where that might matter even more still have it.
4 -
Sensitivity can 100% be an advantage. Also who cares if FOV is an advantage on killer? Its a 4v1 you're already at a disadvantage so why does it matter so much.
5 -
FOV and Sensitivity are similar things though when you talk about what this guy is saying. Both can give an advantage. A play with a higher FOV will have a lot more than a player with a low FOV. Same thing with sensitivity. Having a high sensitivity player will probably do much better than someone with slow motion sensitivity.
1 -
I'm sorry that DBD didnt turn out to be the party game that you hoped. I get more of that vibe from games like Evil Dead the Game. I 100% wouldnt mind options like that in that game. On DBD though i feel like they should be perks but also justfiy the perk slot. I know they wont either buff or combine the trash perks to make them viable but they also for sure wont just give those to us as options.
Sorry
0 -
Again, why is DBD the ONLY exception to this? It makes 0 sense. And no I didn't expect a party game. I prefer playing alone. And I know what DBD is. I've been playing since 2017. Michael was the only licensed character at that time.
1 -
Because info is purposefully limited in dbd. Its the same reason survivors dont get a chat or voice chat outside of 3rd party softwares and its the same reason stretched res was considered unfair.
Again, with more fov a nurse in fatigue can easily track a survivor when otherwise they might have lost them or at least lost a second or two to track.
Does it matter much? No not really but there are clear and not small benefits like that.
1 -
"Making immersing less affective" makes no sense. Our FOV in real life is around 120 degrees. You can check this by putting your arms straight out to the side and you'll be able to see them while looking straight forward.
1 -
Not 120, I meant 160~ or so.
1 -
I've never played DbD at a party
1 -
I will say that going from a first person game that has 90+gov to this one gives me a headache until I get adjusted.
2 -
Surely they could just adjust Nurse fatigue to compensate rather than limiting it for every other killer?
It does make little sense that full on competitive games like Apex with separate ranked modes/leagues as well as crossgen/crossplay between formats where certain formats can choose a higher FoV than others yet they still have it as a basic option while still functioning as a competitive game.
You mention voice chat not being in the game because it offers an advantage yet the devs have said it’s fine to use 3rd party chat and anytime someone talks about balancing the game around SWF by giving them a downside to being able to gain an advantage without using a perk slot, people say DbD isn’t a competitive game and just for fun with friends.
If it’s just a fun game to play with friends then an FoV slider shouldn’t be an issue; if it is a competitive game where in game FoV options ‘break competitive integrity’ then people using voice chat, visual filters, modifying game files for better FPS etc should also be stopped or punished.
Sure you can’t prove everyone is using some of these things but everyone streaming using voice chat or filters would have to stop less it be used as evidence, and modifying game files is simple to stop as they keep accidentally doing it and ‘fix’ it quickly when the forum is flooded with anti aliasing complaints.
Some consistency would be nice.
3 -
FOV is a perk because FOV can provide an advantage in this game. Everybody would just max their FOV and therefore would be useless except maybe the two ppl who'd use it as a challenge
0 -
I don't think FOV options should be part of the settings at all...
Disabling ANTI-ALIASING and V-SYNC, on the other hand...
2 -
Last i checked Apex wasnt a game of tag ...
People saying dbd isnt competitive are out of their minds.
1 -
So as the game is competitive it should be balanced around the top level and SWFs; and people using 3rd party advantages on stream such as voice comms, graphics filters, and modifying ini files for fps and performance advantages should be punished.
Very double standards to require a perk to change the FoV but all these commonly used advantages that also aren’t basic in game options or perks are fine to use and stream while doing so. Even Fog Whisperers do and it massively provides an unfair advantage against those who aren’t using or able to use it, particularly on formats where it’s not possible.
The only way to remain as fair as possible and competitive is to give everyone the option to adjust these things in the game.
Give people the option in game to adjust FoV, add voice comms, give brightness and scratch mark colour options, and the FPS/anti aliasing etc that people modify the game files to improve over everyone else.
If not then these things that aren’t perks or in game intended features should be punishable and anyone streaming using them would be able to have the Vods submitted as evidence.
Ridiculous and never going to happen, but even more ridiculous to say all this is fine to do while saying a small FoV slider is too much of an advantage to include.
It’s a basic QoL feature that all first person games worth their salt have as a standard option; and not everyone can use the slider at max because it often negatively impacts performance. I can’t max mine on a PS4 for Apex etc but I can have it around the middle without affecting performance while making the first person camera less nauseating; and it definitely provides an advantage there too, yet still remains more competitive than DbD.
3 -
I get what you are saying, balancing things from the top down is a good mindset to have in games, but what you dont understand that dbd is an asymetric game, you cant balance it the same way.
If you were to try and actually balance it around top level play, an average killer would 4k around 9 games out of 10 because survivors are op at the very top level. Usual survivors though, even on 4 comms are nowhere near this good and will never be.
Removing swfs will never happen as people obviously want to play with friends and will continue to do so no matter how unfair it is.
The solution to this is something obvious that you will obviously object to. Buff solo survivors to somewhat around swf levels with base kit perks like empathy and bond and give them an in game easy to use communication tool like a ping wheel system. After that or alongside it adjust killer experience accordingly to compensate. Base nerfed corrupt, base nerfed aura reading of bbq, a small speed increase on all m1 killers things like that.
You cannot and should not remove swfs from game and punishing people for playing with friends, no matter how unfair, would kill this game faster than pulling the servers plug would.
I understand basic stuff like this is hard to grasp but please understand that this is coming from a full on killer main.
0 -
I'd like to start by saying that I do agree Shadowborn being a perk isn't great, and I think that a toggle between current FoV and Shadowborn FoV in the settings menu would be a fantastic compromise between the clear need to limit FoV in a game like this and the equally clear reasons for wanting to adjust that for non-competitive reasons.
... However...
I have to ask, how are those things third party advantages? Obviously third party voice comms are acceptable, that's been gone over enough times that it doesn't even need to be responded to, but you bring up graphics filters and modifying ini files - I'm assuming we're not talking about actually cheating with graphics filters (IE, changing bear traps to be neon purple or something) because that is against the rules, so you must be talking about... what, the perk colour changes? I know some Fog Whisperers use those, but I genuinely don't see how that could possible confer any kind of advantage?
As for ini files for performance reasons - if just having a better PC isn't a third party advantage, then increasing your performance through other means isn't a third party advantage either.
Regarding your suggestions for what should be brought into the base game, mostly agree- in built voice comms are a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but some options to slightly change brightness, scratch mark colours, and FoV would be pretty nice.
1 -
What about people like me with motion sickness? Behaviour say they want everyone to feel included. But people like me have to run a perk or we start to feel sick with how restricted the natural fov is. Im paying a perk slot for accessibility. Theres legit good reasons to increase the fov besides just "hey it gives a competitive advantage". It's how i have to play the game.
4 -
I seriously doubt the only way to reduce motion sickness is giving you more fov ...
I'm all for buffing the perk to make it more worth the slot. Hell i dont even mind if they include a slider in the base kit for killers except calling it a QoL would be extremely disingenious, it would be a straight up buff.
And adding it to survivors would 100% re-enable seeing over loops bs so something like this should only realistically be added to killers just so we are clear.
It could be done when they buff survivors to compensate killers. But it would obviously be a straight up buff, not a qol.
1 -
Other than 2 fatigues in the game and maybe curve billy how much would increased fov give such an advantage in chase that its impactful.
4 -
100% should only be added to killers as third person being able to increase the fov just allows you to be even more safe in chase. Other than that there's not really other options to reduce motion sickness other than fov as playing killer feels like im constantly looking through a magnifying glass 24/7.
1 -
Ok so balancing from the top down is done is games because people who aren’t at the top can always get better, if you balance for anything else it creates a miserable experience for everyone at the top and over time people will naturally get better and closer to that unbalanced game state.
I actually completely agree with adding things like Bond and Empathy base kit, even Kindred! The most obvious solution though, if comms is an acceptable advantage is to just add comma like every other game! Toxicity is not a good reason to not do this and would just require the devs to do what all other devs do and punish it through bans.
I never said to remove SWF lol, but I’m pointing out the double standards with things that are allowed that provide a clear advantage while people are arguing against basic accessibility options that most first person games have been restricted to a perk because it does provide a small advantage, much less than 3rd party comms. It is not as much of a lop sided advantage when everyone has access to it, unlike the use of features that aren’t in the game. SWF on comms have a clear advantage over solo who are unable to get that feature as it is not in the game.
Please keep it civil and the passive aggressive comments to yourself though please. Nothing is hard to grasp here and you don’t have to be a main of one side to think that FoV options should not require a perk slot.
1 -
For some reason I think I play better with out the FoV. Could just be me though.
0 -
How can you not find being able to use graphics filters to drastically increase the scratch mark and red glow visibility a clear advantage?
Of course better hardware provides an advantage that is acceptable, but people modify options that are not naturally made available in the game. The same as FoV, increasing FPS and removing anti aliasing both do provide a clear advantage that cannot be got in the game options, but should be available in the game options.
I think it’s just as silly to argue those things shouldn’t be normal options that are available in game, as it is to say that FoV shouldn’t be in the game options.
The difference is that people circumvent the lack of options and it is acceptable to gain advantage that way, yet FoV should be tied to a perk to maintain some sort of competitive integrity? It’s silly, it should all be a basic option and I’m pointing out how the argument to keep FoV a perk for that reason is ridiculous.
I agree with your suggestions about scratch mark brightness options etc, and have asked for as much being colourblind myself and struggling. The options we did get after years of being ignored did not make the problem any better for a lot of people.
It’s also silly for people to say brightness options shouldn’t be in game because it provides an advantage; like people can’t just turn their monitor or TV settings up anyway. Point is it’s stupid to have to do that for this one specific game when every other game just lets you do it in the options menu.
The ‘provides and advantage’ argument just doesn’t work when talking about basic things that most games have while still keeping things fair and competitive, even more so when everybody has access to them and not just a few.
Edit just to add that when I talk about modifying ini files to increase FPS I mean removing the cap placed on it by the devs. With the cap how they have set it, better hardware would provide less of an advantage. The option should be in game and the only reason not to would be the competitive argument which is silly when it’s accepted to modify the files to remove it anyway; just add it as a basic feature, I’m sure everyone would be happier.
0 -
I fully mean it when i say lots of people have trouble grasping the basics. When i see people suggesting to punish SWFs not grasping that it would kill the game in a matter of months, i assume they are in that category. I see no reason not to assume that anyway.
As a side note balancing from top down isnt made with the idea that people will get better. Its made with the idea that if its balanced at the top level it will be balanced at lower levels. This again doesnt work on a game like dbd where both sides cant take advantage of the same buffs or nerfs. This is again, extremely basic and should be easy to grasp.
Alas.
Edit: I do have a problem with civility though dont i.Ill go ahead and take a small break from the forums. Sorry for being an ass to you, still dont think you grasp the basics of much but dont have to be rude to you just cause i think that. Have a nice day.
Post edited by Dead_Harder on1 -
I watched a conference some-odd years ago where a game dev that worked on Journey was talking about camera techniques.
In the Q&A section, someone asked, "You mentioned that you should always add in an FOV slider for people with motion sickness. What about players that increase their FOV for a competitive advantage in multiplayer games, especially first-person shooters?"
The speaker responded with something like, "That sounds like a win for everyone to me. The competitive player gets what they want, and the motion sick player get what they want. It's a win-win, so why not add an FOV slider?"
2 -
Yeah I find the whole "well this provides an advantage" to be extremely stupid when every other modern game has said options and people will adjust them to how they want to play. I never really heard people complaining about FOV in a game like CoD since if they really wanted that they could just turn it up themselves.
1 -
I’m not suggesting punishing SWF, but pointing out that may it provides a clear advantage to the players who use it with 3rd party comms over solo and that is acceptable.
So why are you against adding basic FoV options to the game instead of requiring a perk because that provides a small advantage?
FoV is what this thread is discussing and my examples of accepted advantages not limited to just SWF using 3rd party comms, which is the only one you bring up; is to show how something providing an advantage is not a good reason to keep certain things out the game or punish for their use even though they are not in the game.
FoV should be a basic option and not tied to a perk slot.
Anti aliasing and removing FPS cap should be a basic option and not require editing the ini files.
Brightness settings and options to adjust aura and scratch mark visibility should be basic options and not require use of filters or manual adjusting if you tv/monitor for this one game specifically.
The only argument I’m seeing against adding FoV options is it provides an advantage; which all these other things do and are acceptable.
You don’t think these things should be punished so why do you think a small FoV increase for QoL should be punished by requiring a perk slot?
1 -
People that claim it is purely an accessibility option do not have any clue about game design. Games that provide higher options are balanced around the highest levels and that is a distinct choice that is made.
What people are able to see is an extremely important factor in game design. There are many games that have set camera settings for that reason. Changing it in the default options means that maps need to change, etc. to account for the additional vision.
You might not see the impact of it, but the developers are very aware of it. Imagine a more extreme example, give killers a 3rd person perspective similar to survivors it helps people, it is just accessibility or would that change the whole game?
If the default option gives you motion sickness, that sucks. Yet you are uninformed and naive in the narrative that it is a meaningless factor in game design. The games that provider sliders do so to make it possible to be more restrictive than the chosen max, not the other way around.
0 -
They say it might give an advantage to killer players and I do agree the added FOV makes a huge difference on some killers.
But then again, they could keep record on statistics of the fov people are using, and if kill rates increased they could simply NERF killers accordingly
0 -
The ability to increase FoV is already in the game as a perk and therefore taken into account balance wise.
It does not give enough of an advantage to be restricted to a perk slot and should be a basic in game option.
6 -
So, and how do you balance around the hidding survivor you are seeing that you are not supposed to see? Should strechted resolution that makes it impossible for killers to mindgame be a basic option for survivors, too?
Visuals are a big part of the game, because stealth is an option, thats the way the game is designed. Killers have a limited pov because surviovrs should be able to juke them. Flashing lights are there to distract you from a hidding survivor, and dark spots are there to cover them.
But you know what, since its about motion sickness...just make a slider for it. For every % you increase the killers pov, its balanced by reducing the killers speed by 1%. What the killer gains vs. stealth, he just looses in chase potential. Fair deal.
0 -
So, how do you propose to enable stealth, if there are no dark corners to hide, and the fov is wide enough so noone goes unnoticed? Stealth is a factor and should be, so how would you make it still viable? Turning the survivor invisible?
I know a lot of players dont like the stealth-aspect of the games, but for others its the reason to play, and you cant just ignore them because their playstyle doesnt suit yours.
But in CoD, all players can use that option, and all players get the same advantage out of it. That is not true for DBD, where one side gets an advantage and another does not.
So if killers get a fov-slider, survivors get a distance slider so they can look over obstacles like stretched res?
If you ask for a real ingame advantage, you should offer something to balance it. At least thats my opinion.
0 -
Survivor is literally in third person which is an advantage of its own? Given that the average humans fov is 120 degrees I think that should be the max it should go for killer.
2
