http://dbd.game/killswitch
5 Easy Things To Remove That Would Make The Game 100% Better.
Comments
-
That would be nerfing it by removing its synergy with resilience and pharmacy (which really didn't need a nerf tbh)
0 -
False Equivalency. Camping to get one kill still results in a certain amount of game throwing. Those perks you mentioned do not require any sacrifice whatsoever.
1 -
1.) A strategy WITH counterplay is even more boring. Because then once the other side masters that counter, it's a useless strategy I would rather have an uncounterable strategy to keep a game exciting than one with counterplay to just null anything the opponent is trying to do.
2.) Losing isn't fun. It's not supposed to be.
3.) Being blocked into that room is literally holding the game hostage. Camping someone, or even slugging, has a MAXIMUM timer of 4 minutes, which is realistically going to be half of that.
1 -
Make up your minds guys. Is No Mither bad or not?
0 -
Generally, in a multiplayer game, it's considered by contemporary historians to be "pretty cool" when you can do something about something to a reasonable degree and vice versa. Back and forth. Multiplayer things.
0 -
And generally in a multiplayer game there is an equal number of players on either side to be able to measure that objectively.
0 -
'Objectively' is a hard thing to measure in anything, beyond a certain point. But a literally uncounterable strategy 'feels' crappy to face. Very odd hill to die on by the way.
- That's not how it works. Counterplay doesn't need to be perfectly effective 100% of the time - because that counterplay will also have counterplay. And welcome to the 'turtles all the way down' joys of APvP balancing. And no, uncounterable strategies don't make games exciting. They make games boring. My best example - there was this strategy in Starcraft 2, the 5 Rax Reaper. Virtually unbeatable if you did it right. So...every Terran player did that build, and if you were a Zerg against a Terran, you had to always build in the expectation that they'd 5RR, and hope they misplayed. It made the entire match up very boring and static.
- Losing to something uncounterable barely lets you even play the game. And I completely disagree - I have fun in a fair match, win or lose. A game you always win isn't fun either.
- I'm not comparing time here. I'm saying that both are strategies that prevent someone from basically playing the game, and thus neither are good.
0 -
I am not asking for them to remove bloodlust.
But if bloodlust is in the game to make sure infinites aren't a thing and a killer will catch the survivor inevitable, you can't then say that the survivor deserves to die because he got caught once.
The objective of the killer is to be efficient and create pressure to kill all survivors. I am ok that even if a survivor is the best looper in town they should only delay the killer, making him waste time. So if the survivor did good, the killer doesn't get to claim that he should be a free kill.
Again, removing hook grabs is only good for everyone, again killers should get rewards for unique hooks. A lot of people say it and i agree, promote killers and help killers spread the pressure. But hook grabs need to go away, they don't have any skill for either side, its just a roullete of luck and ping. Rock paper scissors in a video game. Also they already removed a similar mechanic with the hatch escape.
Camping should have a consistent reward and risk.
0 -
Depends on the situation, camping doesn't always result in game throwing. Hell if you get a hook grab, you got an insane reward for doing nothing.
Want to camp to force survivors into doing something risky, get a trade or get people off gens fine.
Don't rely on a dumb mini game of rock paper scissors with the ping
0 -
I agree. I'll add a 6th one that will also make the kobe suggestion less controversial (or more):
Add a concede option for both survivors and killers. Each side votes only for themselves. It becomes available after 5 minutes. If used, it grants a +1 progress (on top of what they have already earned) to whatever archive challenge and daily the other side has active.
0 -
1.) In this game once you start facing Survivors with sufficient knowledge of this much fellated "counterplay" there are certain killer strategies and perks that literally get reduced to zero value.
Counterplay SHOULD be "Okay, if he does THIS then I have a CHANCE to maybe get out of this." An example of this would be a 50/50 mindgame.
Counterplay should NOT be "Oh? He's doing that. Fine, I just do X and it will never work".
Your Terran example is an example of something overpowered, not uncounterable. There's a difference between the two. It's not okay to have something overpowered to the point of having a 100% win rate (I'm looking at you Evil Dead Puppeteer Power Possess Basic Unit Rush) and something that doesn't have a direct counter but doesn't necessarily win you the game.
2.) "Barely gets to the play the game" is a vague phrase this forum likes to throw around. I've seen games where Survivors played for NINE minutes, and then Myers got off an instakill and they said they "barely got to the play the game".
3.) Shutting down the other side's ability to function is a video game staple. And DBD has a lot of it. It doesn't become more fair to stun a killer 6 times for a total of 18 seconds of lost game than it is to stun a survivor for 18 seconds once. Crowd control is often NECESSARY.
1 -
If you try to facecamp the first person you see, and you get a 4K, the other team screwed up so royally the issue is no longer on the camper at that point.
0 -
- ...Sort of? It's more 'okay, I'm doing this, meaning she'll likely do this or this. If she does that one thing, then I'll do x and if she does that other thing I can try y or z, meaning she'll try a, b or c. The test comes in execution and choosing the right play - and yes, this is where it starts becoming almost fractal.
- Yeah, enough with the whataboutisms already? You're not talking to 'survivors'. You're talking to me. There are thousands of folks on these forums - meaning that you can probably find an example of someone saying any silly thing you can name. It doesn't mean that they are correct, or even need to be taken seriously.
- Is it? And no, pallet stuns are not the same as camping/bleeding someone out or taking them hostage.
0 -
No it is, but the devs have decided its meant to be a "hard mode perk" so I think we should lean more into that by making it more of a meme while putting yourself at hindrance
For example, gain twice as much BP (or XP) gain for all catagories or just boldness in exchange for permanently being injured and 1 less hook state
A high risk/high reward (in BP) type perk that makes it more "hard mode" as the devs want it
0 -
1.) There's likely, and then there is "If I do X, Y fails". As an example for some stupid reason Nemesis tentacle doesn't go to the flor, despite leaving a blue glowing lash mark on it. If you try to get a Survivor over a low tile with it, and they crouch, you automatically fail. Period. There's nothing you can do about it. If the Survivor knows how to duck your power becomes useless.
2.) My point stands that the statement is vague. It could mean anything from the Killer spawning directly on top of someone and getting insta-sawed by Bubba (Something that actually happened in a game I wasin), and then there is just throwing a tantrum because Lightborn took away their precious flashlight bullying. "Barely gets to play the game" goes on the wall next to "unfun for the Survivors", "fair to both sides", "free kill", and "takes no skill".
3.) They are the same mechanic to different degrees. The majority of actions taken by both sides revolve around TIME as a currency. Instadowns are powerful because they reduce the chases from 2 to 1, and that saves you TIME. Medkits restore a health state, giving you another chase, which buys you TIME.
Pallet stuns take away the killer's ability to play for 3 seconds, to get you more TIME. Camping and bleeding take someone out of pushing their objective to buy you TIME.
The difference lies in the matter of degree.
0 -
- Sure? I never said that every aspect of this game is perfect. But that should be the design goal, and where it isn't like that it should be.
- That's literally impossible (you cannot spawn on top of someone). Again, I'm not talking about people making obviously silly complaints on the forums. And that's a textbook slippery slope fallacy.
- Okay...we are now talking about two completely different things.
0 -
1.) The design goal of perfection is also vague. What is perfect? Whose idea of perfect? To me making Coldwind maps take place at 3:00 in the afternoon was moving away from perfect. Getting rid of Fog was moving away from perfect. But BHVR considers these steps forward. This whole forum is filled with opinions that would make the game better IN THEIR OPINION. If it were up to me Dead Hard would just be straight up removed from the game entirely and so would Blight. Meanwhile some people legit think Blight is "the best designed killer in the game!".
2.) I assure you it is totally possible. Adam spawned within 2 meters of my Bubba in a corner of Yamoaka Estate and I downed him within the first 8 seconds of the game. I apologized in end game chat.
3.) Why are they different? Both are mechanics designed to temporarily take away the other side's ability to play. What is the main difference between Eruption and Decisive Strike except the number of seconds that ability to play is taken away? The problem is Survivor mentality that they should have full control over their characters, at all, times, no matter what. On the ground? I should be able to get up! On the killer's shoulder? Wiggling needs to be stronger! Did you get hooked? Well, that killer needs to go face a wall and let you get unhooked right away because camping "takes away my ability to play!"
Sometimes games have a penalty box. HockeyExample.png .
It makes me wonder how these people that froth at the mouth over being inconvenienced for two minutes would ever handle playing a two player video game where you have to take turns between player 1 and player 2.
0 -
- Let's...not do semantics and say we did. Because that's generally an indication that a discussion has run it's course. Yes, BHVR aren't perfect, but as a whole, it's a better game than it was this time last year. And at that time, it was a better game than the year before. Yes, everyone has an opinion. But some opinions are wrong.
- Correction - that shouldn't be possible. Might be one of those ultra-rare bugs, like the one that teleports the survivor to you if they're unhooked at the exact moment a pallet goes down.
- Because: A. Survivor scoring works differently, B. DS is 3 seconds, can be used once a match under specific circumstances only and Eruption is 10x as long and can go off multiple times a match - and I'm not even a big Eruption user. C. No, that's a lazy generazation of survivor players, D. there is a difference between that and basically not being able to play a match at all, E. who says that?
That's a silly analogy. This is not a turn based game, and turn based games do not work especially as PvP games unless they have a strict time limit on moves - for precisely that reason.
0 -
1.) My point is that arguing for or against a perfect design is flawed because perfect is an opinion.
3.) So what is the issue, precisely? Because if the argument is "I don't get to play", this game has a LOT of mechanics, both perks and base kit, that take away your ability to play for a variety of reasons and lengths of time.
0
