Is it ok for major game changes to feel unfair?

Is it ok for major game changes to feel unfair?

Some people are unhappy with the Go Next and AFK Crow changes, and are claiming "the changes should be removed or lessened, because it's unfair for survivors".

Will we have the same attitude in Phase 2, when the game changes are for camping, tunneling, and slugging? Will we advocate that the changes should feel fair for killers, or will we demand heavy nerfs for killers, and say it doesn't matter if killers think it's unfair?

Comments

  • CrypticGirl
    CrypticGirl Member Posts: 1,595

    We'll have to see what the anti-stuff changes actually are to know for sure. Given how well the previous measures have gone (which is to say not very well), I feel like the upcoming stuff may be as overkill as the new AFK-detection and go-next prevention. But again, we'll see.

  • Coffeecrashing
    Coffeecrashing Member Posts: 5,740

    One of the examples involves anti-slugging. Many of the anti-slugging suggestions involves punishing killers, regardless if the killers chose to slug, or if they were forced to slug.

    Is that fair? Should we punish killers for slugging, if the killers literally couldn't hook the survivors? For example, if a killer is forced to drop a survivor because of a hook sabotage, the killer honestly tried to hook the survivor, but was denied. Should the killer be punished for slugging in this scenario, even though they wanted to hook that survivor?

  • GeneralV
    GeneralV Member Posts: 12,673

    To be fair, it is a bit early to tell. We haven't even seen anything yet.

  • LordGlint
    LordGlint Member Posts: 9,781

    The AFK crow system and go next prevention has some serious ironing out to do. There's been videos shown already of false positives for both, so bringing it up on the forums is kind of to be expected and is ENCOURAGED by the devs so they can see what's going on and fine tune things.

    As far as the anti-slugging changes... we'll have to see. The devs arnt COMPLETELY stupid. They tested basekit unbreakable in the past, saw the massive amount of sabo plays then and how it became a problem for ppl who were just trying to play killer normally. I dont think they'll just throw in basekit unbreakable or something.

    We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Realistically, if its anything like the anti-facecamp measures... its not going to have any real effect on your games unless you're essentially TRYING to trigger it.

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 4,688

    "Rules for thee, but not for me."

    Most of the player base only cares about getting theirs. Anything that helps them is good and anything that helps their opponent is bad. Abstract concepts like game health or even balance are irreverent unless exploitable.

  • humanbeing1704
    humanbeing1704 Member Posts: 9,091

    I guarantee you there will be some issue with the anti slugging stuff because they never seem to think of variables

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 4,688
    edited June 2025

    Remember how many people were claiming that the go next system would unfairly catch innocent survivors in the crosshairs? Thats exactly what the "killer mains" are generally talking about with "entire play styles are being deleted". The thing both sides should be able to see eye to eye about is that just like the go next implementation: They will absolutely ######### it up on release, it will have false positives at launch and potentially after, innocent players will be effected, and the need to decide whether the potential impact will be acceptable next to what the system actually does as intended. That said, there is zero excuse for rolling these types of changes without at least a token PTB. Hopefully they at least learn from that for phase 2.

    I don't agree with making these types of strawmen about either side, because both sides do it pretty frequently. Just as they will continue to do so for as long as we're all crabs in a bucket.

  • LordGlint
    LordGlint Member Posts: 9,781

    The basekit unbreakable thing never made it out of PTB, so... we'll just have to wait and see.

  • Choaron
    Choaron Member Posts: 818

    All they had to do was preventing self-unhook attempts for the first or 2 minutes of the match. The AFK crows changes were asked by nobody, not even killer mains. The only crow-related overhaul that was, was the collision hitbox getting removed.

  • Coffeecrashing
    Coffeecrashing Member Posts: 5,740
    edited June 2025

    Are you literally doomposting that "stealth is no longer possible in any capacity", but also complaining that killers doompost?

    Stealth isn't dead. That's a complete hyperbole. I can still hide from killers. And I’m sure other people can hide from killers too, as long as they aren’t being really excessive about it.

  • Nazzzak
    Nazzzak Member Posts: 7,597

    I'd wager a majority of players are totally okay with Go Next and anti-excessive hiding measures. There's been ongoing feedback and support for a long time about these very things. They just want measures that work properly. It absolutely is unfair that people are being tunnelled out and then given warnings on their account, I would have thought that's something everyone agrees on?

    Also the anti Go Next measure was always talked about as a benefit for survivors (because it's unfair for the team mates left behind), so why frame it as a survivor nerf and compare it to upcoming killer changes? If it's supposed to be a benefit for survivors to not have team mates abandon them, then absolutely survivors should give feedback on it

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 3,395

    Whenever a game changes, some people will dislike it. That's fine, they are free to post their opinion and others can discuss it.

    Right now the issue is that people are having the change hit in situations that they were never supposed to and getting warning messages about it. If the anti-tunnel is a system that wrongly marks anti-tunnel and punishes killer by taking away ranks and possible DC penalties, then sure we can compare them.

    If its a system that some people like and some people don't, then we'll need to discuss the pros and cons of it on its own.

  • SoGo
    SoGo Member Posts: 4,482

    The BIGGEST issue with both of these systems is that they're bugged beyond oblivion, as is tradition in this game.

    The anti-AFK+anti-excessive-hiding+anti-bodyblocking system (not sure why all three were merged into a single thing, but it is what it is) triggers when it shouldn't and has loopholes that players can exploit to completely bypass it.

    And the anti-go-next changes are also done with the tact of a bull in a china shop, shooting people who got hard-tunneled or used StB with a DC penalty.

    In conclusion, the systems shouldn't feel overly unfair. But most of the unfairness comes from how broken the thing is.