The Amanda's Letter add-on for The Pig has been Kill Switched due to an issue with incorrect RBT count.
http://dbd.game/killswitch
Why is this available for all players it should only be available for killer players.
This whole survey will be sabotaged with bad and misleading info. This should only be available for players that mainly play killer. Why do the keep doing this?
Comments
-
Why?
3 -
Bro 😭
What is behavior doing
-10 -
You're not wrong, its full of weirdly vague and loaded questions and its going to be full of malicious bias "feedback". You can pretty much throw out anything to do with any S or A tier killers tbh. Surveys like this are awful, theres too much nuance for the rigid answer choices available.
-6 -
I'm pretty sure that BHVR will take into account that people's opinions aren't objective fact
7 -
how are they going to know if someone is a killer main precisely? I thought the survey was fine. Tbh survivor mains and killer mains alike shouldn’t be surveyed, the only people who are logical about it are 50/50 players.
4 -
Moreover, survivors' feedback will outnumber killers, because roughly 80% players are survivors. So they would be better off just doing the opposite of the feedback they receive on this one.
-2 -
It's important to have the opinion on both sides of the game - the same as if this was a survivor related survey, I am pretty sure if there was a question such as "do you think your surivvor role is too strong" that killers would like to have the same question asking if they feel the survivor role is too strong.
Data that comes from only one side, is not helpful to us in this context.
21 -
the reason that it is in-game is that it links to your game account
13 -
Dont worry, if the Devs try to implement anything you might not like based on this survey, just spam the forum and social media with dozen of Threads to get it reverted.
Worked a bunch of times, will work again :)
On a more serious note - obviously Survey should be for ALL players. Not only those that might agree with your point of view.7 -
Thats one of the worst statements possible.
-8 -
even as a killer id like my victims to have a pleasant and engaging survival horror experience. kill em with kindness
7 -
thank you I never knew this.
-1 -
Bro what is this survey. It basically asks how it feels to play against some listed killers from the survivor POV, no questions from killer POV at all. Killer players are right about this one.
Also AHAHAHA
4 -
most of my friends were active detriments to my odds of survival; it's a fair question.
3 -
These surveys are always handled and worded terribly, so I don't expect this one to much different. That said, though, would you make a survey about survivors 'survivor-only'? Wouldn't really make a lot of sense.
2 -
do you really think biased opinions are better for the game than unbiased ones?
0 -
Soon: "Well, according to our survey, 80% of players don't think SWF gives any advantage, so we don't plan to balance it in any way :)"
-2 -
But didnt you already do that on stuff like the uninstall survey which was very important as it decided the "top reasons people Uninstalled the game"
-2 -
Um because only asking killer players would be like getting millionaires to set tax rates?
Joking aside there are people who play both roles who'll probably have the best ideas about balance. And bhvr should hear what survivor mains dislike about killers, so the game gets improved with everyone in mind
5 -
As Mandy said, it's important to have both sides say something so everyone gets a bigger picture. Can't have bias weighing us down if we all want balance.
4 -
Are we going to have a survey asking killers how they feel about survivor perks, items, maps etc etc as well? Kinda weird you give us this 1 sided survey only.
Fair is fair no?
-1 -
This is what's really confusing to me, why would they have 0 questions from the killer POV on a killer survey. At a minimum it needs to have equal questions from both sides
Edit: Just saw that they at least track accounts the surveys come from so they can at least see the ratio players that answer the survey play killer vs survivor.
2 -
been years man years don’t think it’s ever gonna happen lmao
1 -
Is there any reason for this? As someone who did scientific research, I prefer if surveys are anonymous. Which is why I usually remove the link to the Cloud-ID when filling out one of those surveys.
And I would not really count that you can then check the stats of the people to see what roles they play. IMO everyone who reads those surveys should be able to see if the person filling it out actually wants to provide useful feedback or is basically just trolling.
0 -
and yet only one that you have underlined is survivor specific.
Killer powers being unbalanced goes both ways, unbalance does not equal overpowered, underpowered is also a thing.
7 -
The main thing is to nerf pig because she is too good.
-2 -
Why would people that mostly play one side be automatically biased?
-3 -
That’s not how people around here actually use the word though. 99% of the time when someone in the community says something is “unbalanced” they mean it’s overpowered. It’s almost never used to mean the reverse.
-4 -
generally thats how it goes, killer mains and survivor mains usually push for what benefits them because they dont play the other side so dont care if its fair or not. 50/50 players are usually less biased because they tend to take both sides into account. It wouldnt make sense for a 50/50 player to push for hard nerfs to survivor role knowing they play survivor 50% of the time, but it does make more sense that someone playing 80% killer would push for survivor nerfs knowing they rarely play that role. Just the way it goes and has been mostly this way for years
-2 -
Ah you again. I thought I told you to stop citing me. Youre just doing the good old generalization nonsense as well as just thinking of the worst mindset for everyone. Ever heard the term neutrality? You obviously not.
-1 -
sorry but its public forums…you dont want to be cited then block me or dont spout nonsense that you dont like being called out on, the citation is for others to see what my comment is regarding.
when you play the game for years and read forums and posts for years and establish a pattern then its reasonable to make assumptions based on that pattern. The pattern i have seen repeatedly for years has been most of the time players with mains generally dont care about the other side…why would they? But the people that play 50/50 seem to offer fairer and more balanced ideas.
Again i back my claim up with the concept of a pattern that has been seen not just by myself but others too…. What basis do you have that mains are not often bias? other than "i said so"…i would like to get something remotely constructive from you as the vast majority of your posts have not been constructive at all. a recent example of this is in this thread…. "Thats one of the worst statements possible." no explanation why or any elaboration…very constructive of you.
-4 -
Yea even the last official stats showed SWF having a marginally better escape rate at best. Not every group of friends you play against is doing comp callouts and coordinating every aspect of the match. 90% of my comms with friends if I'm in a team are us roasting each other for making a misplay or talking about IRL things.
The greatest advantage to SWF has always been avoiding the horrible matchmaking system. I literally got a Bill on my team today with 0 hours. He had 2 green perks and was tunneled out of the match immediately.
-1 -
Nobody agrees to your "subjective perception" while there is reasoning and neutrality on the other side.
0 -
so you still offer nothing constructive? are you a survivor main, killer main or 50 50 player? your failing to explain what this reasoning behind neutrality is. what benefit would it have? You offer no evidence, no explanation other than "i said so"
0 -
You are not offering anything constructive besides "it feels like" while just assuming things on people, entirely neclegting reason. You have absolutely no valid evidence for any of your assumptions.
0 -
I 100% Agree. Not being balanced means its rather overpowered or Unpowered. A balanced character/Ability should be playable against and playable as. If a Killer or perk has over tunned abilities or Counterplay there considered Unbalanced.
0 -
The range of "mains" is more than just a scale of black and white.
I would say the average player who "mains" one side over the other is sitting at around 65-75% time invested into their main role.As for myself, I play mostly survivor (with a 75/25% bias in time investment). But that is not to say that I can't see the issues on the killer side, despite playing survivor 75% of the time.
Yes, some people are more biased in their opinions, but that is just human nature.
Yet, nothing is as black or white as you describe it. There are players who are primarily playing one side over the other that can have an unbiased view on things in the game.1 -
without having these measures actually in place all anyone can do is say what they feel would happen. The difference is im saying WHY i think the way i do and offering logic reasoning to back it. You are basically saying "people are nice, people will give their money to homeless people…ever heard of "generosity"? Yes some people will do that, but overall majority wont. Same applies here, yes you can have neutrality but the overall majority wont and the evidence is seen in these forums. you didnt answer the question, are you a main or do you play one side over the other? You could atleast use your own experience to justify your point but you dont even do that. My guess would be your a survivor main and you refuse to believe you have a bias. if im wrong, you should be able to provide your stats to show this is not the case.
-1 -
i agree it is a scale and some will show balanced ideas even if they are 75% to one side, however the overall majority wont, thats my point. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but how serious these opinions are taken into account by others can depend on many things such as possible biases. Generally, people take the ideas and opinions of players more seriously if these players can show they are not biased, explain why, explain the impact of both sides. Thats not to say their opinions are invalid in any way but how serious others take these ideas onboard can be effected by possible biases influenced by the main role they play, which is why when someone comes out with an absurd suggestion for a buff or nerf and they fail to acknowledge the impact on the other side then it highlights a bias.
0 -
Of course, extreme takes should always be taken with a grain of salt.
But I guess even biased people does have good ideas. They just need a little tweak here and there to better fit into the game, to make it fair for both sides.0 -
i agree, and there we have a constructive discussion and debate about both sides, about balance. My issue is when people dont explain or show they have taken both sides into consideration. I will often highlight the impact of the other side for them if they dont do it themselves but if they still fail to acknowledge these potential impacts (or they acknowledge them but just dont care) then thats when i call it bias and start to take the ideas put forward less seriously.
0
