Q&A wasn't bad
Am I the only one who wasn't unhappy with The Q&A? Lol
Like there's a lot of people upset about it but I honestly don't think it was really that bad.
They were pretty explanatory in their answers and their thought process behind the answers.
Like COH, yes it's not a huge Nerf like people, including myself wanted. But it's something, and shows they are listening and as they said, continuing to watch it's performance. But as a whole, the boons are working as intended. I can't say I'm happy that I can't snuff boons permanently, but it's what they want, and since it's not my game I can't say too much. I will say though, the other boons don't seem too oppressive even though I can't snuff them permanently. Maybe they're on to something with just nerfing the numbers on COH? Food for thought.
They did give a lot of soon answers, or that they couldn't give too much information about it, but they explained that too, and I can understand it.
I know a lot of people want everything to happen right now, and for everything to be fixed and perfect. Because we live in a what about me and I want it now society these days, it's harder for people to look at the overall picture. What might seem like a good idea to you, and for you in terms of balance or gameplay, may not be that way for everybody. It's even harder when it comes to an asymmetrical game. Like I'd love a buff to the timing on doctor's base shock animation. However, if I think about, playing against that would just be wayyyyy to oppressive.
People also need to understand that games take time and resources, a lot. Even when looking at other multiplayer games, like say league of legends. That thing works even on potato computers, and even small number changes add buffs or nerfs take weeks before we as players ever get to see them. Champion reworks are mentioned and then it takes months, months before they even go into ptb, and weeks after that before they go to live. And sure enough, when one thing gets added, buffed or nerfed, it indirectly affects something else that now becomes too powerful or too weak. That's the nature of online games.
And if I'm being honest, although it irks me sometimes, I can understand not telling us about everything. Because like they said, if they told me today that they decided to make some big change that I absolutely loved, and then next week they had to change it completely I'd be pretty upset. Hell I was upset instantly after reading through Scott's fake patch notes and then realizing they were fake. Could you imagine if it was a real idea that they leaked weeks and months in advance, and then scrapped it before it ever made it to ptb? Even if they told us about it when they scrapped it, we'd still be upset.
Prime example, the early game collapse. They mentioned it very early on in the development process years ago, and people are still talking about it even though they've said multiple times that it wasn't happening.
All around, I think it was a decent job devs, and you were as transparent as you could be with us.
Comments
-
Ask the same question, get the same answer. Not many seem to know that.
10 -
I agree. Sometimes it gets a little annoying hearing "soon" or "we're working on it", but that's more to do with the kinds of questions that keep getting asked whenever the devs open up a QnA. Somewhere along the line the community needs to take responsibility for just... not upvoting questions about Switch cross progression when we already know what the answer is and that they'd be actively telling us if it changed.
There was some good stuff in there, too. I was pleased to hear that they are aware of and looking into some of the bigger problems in the game, it's nice to know they're generally pointed in the right direction.
4 -
Agreed, and if you actually go back and look at old DBD, it's really come a long way in terms of balance and overall gameplay experience. It's just very easy to lose sight of that sometimes.
0 -
My biggest problem with the Q&A is that it said literally nothing. It has been known for a very long time that CoH is busted, and they have admitted that everything they touch in the mid-chapter patch did not require a programmer. Tell me with a straight face that replacing 100% with 75% requires programmers. They easily could have nerfed it this patch (even tough it's quite a meaningless nerf that does not address the real problems with it but at least it would be something). The entire Q&A could have been a tweet saying "hey, we are nerfing CoH in a year, hang on!" or something. If they have LITERALLY nothing to say or confirm, why even bother? I appretiate the effort and such, but it comes off as a bit disingenious, as if someone at BHVR said "Hey, the community is quite rowdy, what shall we do?" "Just throw a Q&A at them and then blame the community for not asking the questions we are willing to anwser lol".
0 -
CoH will be adjusted in the next patch...not in a years time. So when the next patch drops, the CoH change will be in there.
5 -
Just to clarify, do you mean the upcoming midchapter, or what would be the Ringu release?
1 -
I'm less annoyed at the non-answers and more that I really strongly disagree with some of the actual answers given (bots can't replace DCs because we don't want to lose the feel of playing against real people, kills are a better indicator of performance than hooks and if you don't agree with how MMR works then git gud, a CoH nerf that doesn't address why the perk is broken.) There's some things like match replay or no visible thumbs up indicator that I understand their decision on even if it's not what I was hoping for, but some of the others seem vitally important and seriously missed the mark on why they reached that conclusion.
That said, I do get the aspect of being leery of giving the community too much information - we do take any hypotheses they float out as 100% features we're getting and riot when they don't happen. I did think it was funny (but sadly necessary) when they brought up a Twins rework and had to stress several times with a rolling header that this wasn't happening immediately.
5 -
Some of their reasoning's are just off putting when it comes to things that need adjustments and the generic answer of 'Too time consuming' or 'Not enough resources' is simply BS in my opinion.
4 -
I thought it was good Q and A overall, I didn't like all the answers (yes I think 8 hooks 0k for the killer is a good result are you trying to encourage camping and tunneling or what lol) but there was a lot more useful info in there than I was expecting and at least CoH was addressed. Only thing I wanted addressed that wasn't was the buffing yellow add-ons to match greens and purples.
0 -
I wasn't unhappy about it. I couldn't stop laughing. It was some good comedy.
5 -
You mean slightly meaningless number tweak. People want the perk changed to something else or gutted to the point it isn't viable. It is promoting really unhealthy gameplay and can hardly be considered "not game changing" like was said in response to making boons one and done like hex totems.
Boons are fine, team wide healing is not.
6 -
I totally disagree with their view that kills and escapes are valid indicators of skill. Their football and hockey analogies were flawed. Players on the teams have their own stats which indicate how good they are as individual players. Even if they are on a team with bad coaching or other players that are not playing up to the same standard, we know that that player is good, and if they get traded to a better team, they get more wins. Look at Barry Sanders. One of the best running backs ever, but he was on a bad team. He did well regularly, but the team had trouble winning games. The team's losing record was not an indicator of his skill as a player. Instead, we look at his personal stats to see how good he was. Rushing yards, yards per carry, receptions, etc...
If you are just looking at kills and escapes, you are ignoring the individual stats, and only looking at the final outcome. For survivors the game ignores rescues, gen repairs, killer looping, etc.. For killers they ignore hooks, chases, downs, and more. A survivor can play amazing but die on their first hook because their teammates sucked. The fact that they did not escape has little to do with their individual skill.
He also said that a killer who gets a lot of hooks but few kills is not that skilled. It takes a lot of skill to hunt down and hook survivors, say, 8 times in a match. Certainly, far more skill than a face-camping Bubba. I get that escapes and kills should be a factor, but it should not be the only factor. To me, they are just being lazy, and it is hurting the game. Good survivors who play all of the aspects of the game well should rank up, even if they don't escape. They will likely get more escapes when they are matched with better teammates. Killers should rank up based on everything they did accomplish, even if they didn't get a bunch of kills.
2 -
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone interprets things their own way.
But if you stop and think about, COH is pretty strong right now, game changing even. And yeah, people are asking for it to be either gutted or changed completely, which is in my opinion completely ridiculous. It's called circle of healing. An area of healing is the point of the whole perk. They're not about to change the perk or gut it completely because then it would just not be used anymore and the meta would just continue being the same 5-6 perks it's been for a while.
Your only other options then would be to either Nerf boons entirely and change their mechanics, which would indirectly Nerf the other two that aren't overly strong or game changing. The last option is changing it's numbers which is what they're doing. But I can understand them wanting it to still be strong enough to stay in the meta. Hence the 25% and then they'll watch and see how it does. Then if it needs more tweaking they'll tweak some more.
Y'all remember mettle of man? It was so broken when it came out and people cried for a herf immediately. Now it's been a perk almost nobody runs anymore for years. So instead of just nerfing all new perks to the ground and keeping the stale meta, I would much rather them tweak it as they go along until it feels healthy.
1 -
I think you misunderstood his point. If a person gets 8 hooks but isn't able to secure kills, why put him against even harder opponents next time? And vice versa, why should it be counted as a loss for survivors when they get hooked?
What you're asking for is separate systems, one calculating killer hooks, kills, chase times, and anything else it could calculate. And another for survivor chases, hooks, unhooks, Healing, gens, escaping ect..
What you're asking for is astronomical and isn't done by any other game, let alone a niche one like DBD.
Even league of legends, millions of online players, has only one system. Did you win? MMR goes up? Did you lose? MMR goes down. How much it goes up and down, is based upon your past games, and the people you're currently facing. That's it. It has nothing to do with in game stats. And they've had SBMM for years and have tweaked it almost every year.
DBD is an asymmetrical game, one that just introduced SBMM a few months ago. And is not so easily defined as, did you lose/win, because it's 4v1.
As they said, the calculating part is doing well, but the backfill is not. The prioritizing of skilled opponents vs time spent in queue isn't working out, so they're updating it.
I will say I would like to see it become a little less easy To reach high MMR, but that's neither here nor there.
1 -
You don't change a meta filled with broken and op perks by adding equally or more broken and op perks. Survivors have plenty of good perks to choose from but don't bother because nothing is, or will be stronger than extra lives and ways to extend chases.
COH didn't even change the meta, it just filled the 4th random perk slot on a single survivor while the other 3 take other broken filler stuff for their 4th slot.
1 -
I agree that I want the ability for bot matches to try killer powers, but not replacing a DC with a bot.
Because of the exact reason he said. It's hard to get bots to do what they're actually supposed to do in a way that replicates humans. So they most likely scenario is you get a bot that gets instantly hooked and gives the killer access to perk abilities that you might not have had to deal with otherwise. Or, they do something else like trying to unhook you immediately in front of the killer, ending with you both going down and free pressure for the killer. It'd probably hurt more than help.
0 -
I have to ask how many QnA's you've watched cause this one just rehashed a lot of the same questions for no reason they could have very easily just listed a bunch of the questions and said we answered these in our last QnA and our answer hasn't changed. Also there answer behind the MMR question and perk tiers are laughably out of touch.
0 -
Once again, I do agree it's currently too strong, and so do they, hence the nerf. It happens a lot in other online games. They'll introduce something new to the game, it'll be extremely busted for a while, and then they'll slowly balance it out. It's even happened with DBD, it's just been a while.
But you're taking only one part of something someone says, trying to make it fit your point, and then discarding everything else. There's no other way to change it without just nerfing its numbers, which they're doing. Have a little patience.
1 -
Overall, I don't agree with that. There's currently way too many things that get screwed over by disconnecting, and not just on the survivor side. Survivors ragequitting rob the killer of hook perks, emblems, and the ability to get certain challenges or achievements. This is very deliberately weaponized, alongside the much more obvious issue of "I don't have a teammate at 5 gens left because Feng didn't like that her CJ tech didn't work." Even if the bot is awful in chase, it's still an extra set of hands to do gens and heal. You can give the bots BT if hook farming is an issue. In the majority of situations, something is better than nothing.
It's a weak reason. I'm more convinced they won't add this because of the other reason they alluded to - the bots aren't programmed to react to killer powers, so they'll do stupid things like ignore zombies, window vault in front of Huntress, or sit tight with a RBT on their heads until they blow up, and they don't want to have to create and maintain 26+ subroutines for them.
0 -
Not really. Peanits answered this both on stream and in the forums about the perk tiers, and I agree. Anything worth doing is worth doing right the first time. Why spend all that time removing perk tiers from every aspect of the game, meaning bloodwebs, shrines, ect.. which yeah would help a lot right now in this current moment to reduce the grind. But then that grind would eventually come back when more stuff is added. Or! You could spend the time now to get it right to where it's not an issue in the future at all.
Everyone keeps saying they don't want just band aid fixes and instead want permanent change, but they're trying to do that now by making sure it's done right and y'all are mad cause it's not done right now the way y'all want it. Makes no sense. If anything, it shows longevity because it means they see this game going strong still 5 years from now, which I hope it does. And it's good that they want that too. Otherwise they'd just make quick fixes for everything till it died.
Also, MMR is a brand new system to DBD. It's going to take a while to iron out, just like it does with any game. But they can't really look to other games for tips and tricks, because there's no other game like DBD with SBMM on the market. So it's all trial and error right now.
2 -
You also have to think, all that time creating bots could be spent on game health, balance, and new content. No other game adds bots when someone leaves an online match, why should this one?
0 -
I did not misunderstand his point, I just disagree with it. If a person gets 8 hooks, they could have easily gotten kills if they face-camped or tunneled. I would say that they are more skilled than a face-camping Bubba. If they go against better players and still get a lot of hooks but few kills, they are doing fine. If they start getting fewer hooks, they will drop into a rank they belong at.
Likewise, a survivor that carries the team but gets hooked once and is not rescued by their much less skilled teammates, should not be penalized because of who they are matched with. It's actually worse for survivors because when you lose you get teamed up with even worse teammates.
What I'm asking for is not astronomical. They were already tracking those things and using them in the old system. The problem was that the value that they gave to everything was not an accurate representation of overall skill. All they really needed to do was tweak the numbers of what they were already using.
Even worse is that it has led to more toxic gameplay. Killers are only concerned with kills so face-camping and tunneling is the norm. Not fun for the players on the receiving end. Survivors are far less altruistic now and it has become an everyman for themselves situation. It has even led to BM stuff that I rarely saw before, like deliberate body blocking so that the killer will get that person instead of them. In LoL, you win or lose as a team. In DbD, each survivor wins or loses individually, solely based on whether they escape or not, making escaping individually the sole focus, rather than escaping as a team. People that do little, but escape, should not be elevated while people that do all the heavy lifting, but get killed on a single hook because those other people don't want to risk going for the rescue, lose rank.
1 -
I agree that the current system needs to be tweaked, but shouldn't account for everything. It's just possible to do. Tracking and actually implementing it into a system that reads all these different variables and then makes decisions based on these variables are two different things. Queue times alone would be far more ridiculous than they've ever been.
I'm also curious to see what all the face camping killers do when the ability to do that is removed. They mentioned in a previous one that camping was being looked at, and now with the conversation about the bt basekit, it does lead me to believe they're currently working on that. I doubt they'll make BT as it is basekit, but I imagine they're working on something to eliminate or reduce the effectiveness of camping.
0 -
I think its more that the bots only work on the tutorial map and would require to much effort to program the other maps to make them work and recognise what they can and can't run into.
Just look at zombies on pale rose...
0 -
Also a valid point. Though I'm not sure the bots are perfect on the practice map, either. Trees and hills are where they consistently have trouble.
I just think that "we want to preserve the human element in DBD, and the bots could sometimes make things worse than having no player at all" was a dishonest answer and it's dodging the real reason they don't want to do it, which is that it would require a workload they don't want to allocate.
Meanwhile, when it comes to practice mode, I don't care if the bots are pants on head stupid - I expect them to be, and I would never expect them to be true prep for real players. I just want somewhere where I can practice blinks, figure out hatchet trajectories, or check out which objects are slippery and which collide in peace.
0 -
Here is my take on the QA.......we are idiots. Plain and simple we are truly idiots. I saw so many questions that were the same thing upvoted for no reason as to keep good valid questions down voted. Those questions all had the same answer.
That being said the changes to CoH is good but not addressing Boons in general and saying they are working as intended shows a one-sided stance that many of us have said the DEVs take. Not saying the DEVs are taking one groups side over the other intentionally but rather unintentionally. The issue with Boons in general are The Range, Floor Penetration, and also Undying Plus. These three things are what makes CoH so broken, I would of actually of been happy if they addressed those things before the 25% Nerf.
QoL changes are good because so many Killers need them as they are technically too weak or outdated for the current pace of the game.
Add-On changes because they are too powerful for High Tier MMR is a joke plain and simple. Only people are stay in that region of No Man's Land are the sweat fest players. Casual players like me try to stay in the Low to Mid tier just so that we don't get destroyed by SFW squads or Campy Killers.
0 -
I don't think you understand how much getting rid of perk tiers would help with their scalability, if they were to get rid of perk tiers today it would take them 15 years JUST TO CATCH BACK UP TO THE CURRENT amount of perk tiers you have to buy and that's only if they release 6 perks per chapter which they don't always do so it would likely take even longer to do. So sure it may not be an absolute permanent solution but it isn't just a bandaid fix and the only thing they'd have to adjust is the blood web, Perk tiers don't matter anywhere else so a fairly simple change would reduce the grind by over a third and buy them 15 YEARS to make more changes to the system.
And MMR has proven to be awful and it's been awful since release and since they tested it and it's only made minor improvements so it's funny you say anything worth doing is worth doing right the first time then defend MMR which is awful now and wasn't done right the first time, very contradictory.
BHVR also talks about how they have so many teams working on different things so why can't they do both with short term changes as well as long term changes, they arent a small company, plus you'd think that a game that's changed very since it's release wouldn't have the same bugs for years like the slug bug and the constant sound issues it's honestly pathetic.
0 -
the nerf of BOH : should be the same as the killer.. the totem break and can't re use it.. killer hex can't be choose the placement and when it broken .. well killer .. to bad for you, survivor should be the same.. to bad for your (none changing game perk)
0 -
The thing is that they were already using that stuff to rank players in the previous system, so it can certainly be done. The problem was that it gave too much value to certain things and allowed people to rank up way above their actual skill level. All they really need to do is tweak those numbers and remove any stuff that is not really skill based. I imagine that it would need to be tweaked over time, but it would be better than this mess. I don't expect it to account for everything you do, just the main skills. It also wouldn't affect queue times. It just affects your rank, like it always has. Your points give you a rank at the end of the match, and it is already calculated by the time you queue up for the next match.
Not to mention, when you are in a situation where you know you are not going to win, it tends to make a lot of people just give up. Why keep playing if you know that nothing you do will matter? It encourages, suiciding, DCing, or just going afk for the rest of the match. That isn't fun for anyone, and people tend to stop playing games that they don't find fun. It's worse for survivors because a lot of whether you win or lose has to do with the other survivors. If they suck, then you can see you have no chance of escaping. And all your rescues, gen work and chases mean nothing. Plus, you know you will be teamed with bad players in your next match too.
I'm not sure what they can or will do about face-camping. It was them that told everyone that it was a valid tactic, encouraging people to do it even more. I think if they do anything to remove face-camping, which I hope they do, they will also have to address why killers feel that they need to face-camp (outside of the lazy players and griefers). If they tell killers they can't face camp and keep the current kills = Win system, there will be a huge backlash.
0 -
Almost all the answers were just no or maybe which mean nothing since we've gotten a whole hell of a lot of maybe in the past the was just a no in disguise. Other the CoH and maybes what did we actually learn today that we didn't already know.
We learned they won't get rid of perk tiers because "it doesn't solve the core issue" even though it would help immensely now and would give them at least a 5 years just to get back to the amount of bp you have to spend to max everything now and would likely simplify any changes to the bp economy in the future.
We learned that somehow BHVR doesn't understand why mmr sucks or how to make good anologies.
Am I missing anything? Most of the questions they answered today has already been answered. The mights and maybes mean nothing since half the things they say they'll do never happens.
0 -
Not a word about the Deathslinger. And the Hillbilly...
1
