• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chickeninja last won the day on February 20

Chickeninja had the most liked content!

About Chickeninja

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,003 profile views
  1. Usually devs play other games more than they play their own. The reason for this is that they have to "learn so much" from other games to be able to balance their own. That's why balancing is so hard, right? Perhaps we should follow their lead and grow our brains. As hunter, a recurring thing I see is survivors with infinite UV, which I feel is related to the changes of late. Folks balancing things on their own but just a couple of hours and my hunter is developing a tan. And as survivor one thing bugs me almost as much as the ugliness of seeing hunters with next to no experience, give folks that have invested time into the game mode a difficult time, IS the fact that from 1st person pov of survivor, everybody finds ways to deal with the enlarged radius and decreased duration of them popping... only to feel like "that spit landed on a surface two corners/objects behind me and game physics creates a false positive". So in this case, adapting doesn't do much to create a more satisfying experience. Physics is off and feels less like the direct live action realism I appreciated in this game mode. The longer all these fixes don't take place and the more people engage in group negativity, without groups being more proactive in promoting clean play instead of calling names, the less desirable the game mode will appear to the public. But since numbers seem up, it would seem that not fixing bugs makes a better game.
  2. Gaming improving decision making and problem solving? That seems to only hold in the narrow sense of the game itself because it doesn’t appear to be as true as the gaming public would like to believe, i.e. you won’t learn how to smoothen social moves, drive better, perform surgery better, or make better decisions generally in the world by say becoming an experienced tactics specialist of Be the Zombie. I don’t see the evidence but since I don’t read everything, perhaps EM could enlighten us and point towards the science that establishes that. Nerves of steel? Lol, with all these benefits from better decision making, to better problem solving, AND growing uber balls it sounds like we could substitute military training and education with playing Be the Zombie. It’s cheaper and we get the same or better results. The problem with specialist arguments: just play a few more hundred or thousand hours and you’ll see what we mean. And that’s perfectly legitimate as far as opinions go, but falls flat when considering everyday facts: doing anything for a few hundred hours will make a person feel like they’re learning something, overcoming something, or conquering fear “practicing steel nerves”, training reflexes etc. But whether this is true for people's lives and in which sense they truly benefit? That seems much more unclear: how can you distinguish a time wasting activity from a bad game that keeps requiring you to spend more and more hours to "get it"? You could say the same about any other game or activity, even unpleasant ones that aren't fun. What makes a quality game world class and distinguishes it imho, is that you don’t have to earn a degree and spend hundreds of hours to learn what normal play is like and people still feel empowered in their choices and excited to play. Good game implies that genuine fun can be had easily. Hundreds of hours means that this is a specialist’s game mode and that balance decisions are made to benefit the highest level of play, while the rest have to bite a learning curve harsher than the early players, that tell everybody to grow some, when that's always easy for us to say because we were around the longest. And in the case of Starcraft etc. this is fine but Techland’s position remains clear regarding the question: Is the game mode only for PvP specialists (that have the freedom to play for hours daily) or is it for the general public to enjoy casually? And the balancing updates have swung BOTH ways, which nourishes false expectations that try to please everybody with neither specialists or beginners satisfied. Techland has repeatedly stated that they want to cater both to veterans’ as well as to casual expectations. But who knows what route they'll take in the end?
  3. It may feel OT but it's not: There has been a general trend towards one specific kind of competitive play in PvP of the game which boxing Crane points towards: tactical play. This has eclipsed the strategic dimension almost entirely. I used to look forward to discovering how people approach PvP of the game. There were more styles which is why boxing Crane reminds me of this: nowadays almost all strategy is reduced to preparing for tactical confrontation, with chosen routes, best inventory choices, and play styles obeying this rule. Any deviation and losing is more likely. And because "balancing" has focused much on cleaning up the tactical areas, everybody plays much more similar because tactics on their own are pure mechanism... once one has overcome the feeling of pride of being tricky and smart for commanding some combination with the right timing, it loses the "aha freshness gotcha" quality it used to have and can become boring, implying infinite repetition of the same routines. There's more imagination in boxing Crane's possibilities than a thousand games played for the same tactical tricks over and over. Even a million hours of experience won't make a difference because: same mechanisms.
  4. By this reasoning, nobody can have an opinion regarding a game unless they are highly experienced. That would create a lot of sadness in your life man, e.g. reading the internet or this forum. All these inexperienced idiots having opinions, right? Also, there is enough evidence of highly experienced experts committing tremendous stupidities that beginners aren't even be able to conceive, precisely because their attachment to some current state-of-affairs keeps 'em from seeing the forest for the trees. See politics/dictatorships/idiots that are convinced that their experience somehow magically insulates them from being wrong for proof. Now I have this image of Crane as some awesome boxer, punching hunters and zombies with elaborate combos, which IS consistent with survivor narratives in a zombie apocalypse setting. Perhaps more so than pimping the hunter/survivor to preside over high amounts of ever increasing resources with tweaked versions of what end up to be the same abilities over and over... calling it the best balancing ever, every couple of weeks, while alienating both beginners and experienced player base... that can't or don't want to invest the increasing time/effort it takes to be able to participate in the game without being a drag on possible team mates, let alone enjoy the thing. Boxing Crane seems fresher than all that.
  5. Yes. Emotions get a bit heated around here as the mode has undergone both negative and positive changes in the past and it is pretty common for proposals to be posted that are less thoughtful than what both of you seem to be getting at. Right, nobody has to prove they won the Olympics to share notes and opinions; and that all of it can be accomplished with minimum toxicity. In the end, everybody is interested that the game mode be as fun as possible. And while I've used fists at times, I can't say that I meet many players who'll work on integrating that into their play. But indeed, the option exists and for an open world game that restricts all the fancy survivor weapons in PvP for alleged balancing purposes, your play and the questions it raises are an issue. Tackles through objects is something the community found to be a cool part of the game mode's unpolished and gritty style when it was added. But it's not just aesthetic because the ability, with adequate constraints, forces survivors to pay more attention to the approaching hunter, even if they may be separated by solid objects/buildings, while granting the hunter more interesting lines for tackles. This is the kind of "broke" that most folks agreed they wanted. You may want to elaborate on the flash radius idea and show us an example of the perpendicular thing to clarify things. Indeed. My preference would be for more wiggle room in this department for everybody to be able to do their own thing without that fact breaking the game.
  6. I agree with most of your post and to clarify: I don't advocate going back to defect stuck spits. But assume somebody wants double hunter play where a single survivor is outgunned. Then the natural thing to do is to auto balance ourselves by limiting pounce and/or spit use. A more vulnerable hunter, as in earlier updates, becomes desirable. My point is that earlier settings could be revived with appropriate tweaking and agreements by players and their play styles. And while I also see that cheating is becoming more sophisticated, a community that stays tightly knit, informative on the latest tricks, how to spot them, and remains non toxic with each other (by reporting the exploits in forums such as this one) will have more of a chance of not being played. I don't judge people themselves that use magical hunter swords or flying survivors. They could be misguided kids mucking around lacking guidance in life, and to somehow genuinely penalize them for attempting cheats while playing a no stakes online game seems a bit harsh/paranoid. They don't know what they're doing in most cases, so I just straight up tell them and in 99% cases, they stop joining games I'm in. It's worse of course, when experts are doing the same because it gets harder to spot. That folks learn how to rely on themselves and their community, relying on self-policing, sticking together instead of ratting others out for duping medkits etc. or just passively waiting for things to be done for them so that "cheating disappears". I'm not really the informer or tattletale type, which is why I think the actual exploit is more useful to the community than the toxic "who did what when". Some folks change when they're informed that they're using an exploit and some exploits, in view of the spit modifications, like look back insta flare may become necessary (not a good sign for game quality this...). Thus, not all exploits constitute abuse of online PvP. It depends on the overall game mode state, abilities, survivor numbers etc. And to folks beginning the game, if you have trouble and see folks abusing an exploit and denying it, look for the exploit in the bugs/exploit thread and refer those players to it (if not making a new entry yourself). That thread is proof of this community's stance towards abuse of exploits and some folks need to see proof of that outside their games.
  7. I'm not sure it is this simple. It's not that I disagree completely with you, it's just I can also relate to peoples' frustration. The last patch we were told: "This is the fairest patch ever!" and "statistics can't lie!", variants of which have made the rounds since the game's release. But with so many folks able to mod the game to their liking, cheating never being addressed, and so much variety in people's play styles it becomes natural to ask: Why not let everybody play the update they want with the settings they choose? After all, people will do so anyway, cheating in many cases for some earlier ability (or just to not have to craft medkits, potions etc.), and their reason may not always be glorification of their skills or maximization of wins. Assume somebody takes the advice of some of the cheerleaders who'll play through any patch, no matter what is changed, and decides to equip shields, adapt their play style yet again to the current patch, the question concerning preferences is still legitimate: that person bought the game where they could choose between use of shield or not. So following the advice gives them a poorer, more limited/reduced experience of a game they purchased. Some people, yours truly included, value consistency of the experience along with options. I therefore relate to peoples' frustration: they return to a game finding that it isn't the game they paid for. You purchase a game in a certain state of development and perhaps you valued the play style encouraged by some early patch. Maybe you just want to explore some earlier version. If the game/game mode belongs -at least to some degree to the buyer and player of said game- why can't they play the game the way they bought it? Or the way they got used to it, or the way they've come to prefer it? Why are they "lesser players/unskilled cheaters" for their personal preferences, no matter how uninformed/inexperienced those preferences happen to be? Similarly to having no control over whether survivors choose to host on normal difficulty vs. those who do on Nightmare, I used to think: "wow, how lame, they're playing normal difficulty." Now I see that that was just me pushing others to accept my preferences. And if those preferences were visible to others, so we'd have more cards on the table up front b4 win/loose/forfeit, then people could be more willing to play overpowered AND inexperienced hunters or survivors: because both sides would have a clearer idea of what they're getting into, both sides would be in a more informed position to accept or decline games. The Host will have certain settings and Hunter would invade with certain abilities and there's either handshake or decline, much like people browse each others' profiles b4 doing so these days anyway but with more info on the types of games/preferences others prefer. Give folks more control and transparency and they'll balance the game via their preferences. Keep mucking with the core of the game while losing consistency of the gaming experience and playing style options, forcing everybody to accept one variant/play style/interpretation of the game, at every update/patch? That not only tries to impossibly please everybody... that's trying to please everybody over all times/updates, which is even more... uhm impossible.
  8. Thanks for the generous advice but you know how it is when trying new things: you go on vacation and decide to take a vacation from the vacation, a trip within the trip, as it were. Then you could still decide to try something new, and on the way to that new thing, you could decide to try something new. I dunno man, but at some point I'm sick of having to try new things. Particularly when they start to feel like work. And that's how I feel about the update: too much effort/time required for too little reward/benefit. But that's just me and your mileage may vary of course.
  9. You sound like Hulk here. Puny humans...fear me...roar!!!!!!!!! Nobody wants easy pushovers and yet nobody wants impossible or overly tedious learning curves. I can agree with that. Regardless of sides: to call the update great while having pages of fine tuning, with both veterans and beginners quitting, shooting up all over the net? Either the update made Dying Light great again, which wouldn't require 3 weeks of community tweaking things like the UV ranges above, or the update was not optimal. The community being so generous with their knowledge, knowing full well that they are providing Techland a free testing service is perhaps the most optimal thing about the game, when I think about it.
  10. That’s just it though: you needed a few weeks of intensive play to arrive at that conclusion. That doesn’t mean the update was good. It just means you got used to it. A successful pounce requires a level of true skill? Post update I observed a higher number of undeserved gotcha pounces by my hunter. Also tactically, you’re describing a scenario where the hunter takes the bait and complaining that they get punished for it. As for the survivor types milking this tactic: There are other, more measured ways to discourage camping from giving folks an edge strategically. Note that camping itself is a symptom of poor game design: folks feel they don’t have options with which to engage hunters, so they camp. Equally important to all the balancing arguments is that the game is fun to play. And drop attack was one of the most fun mechanisms for a reason: survivor makes a sound prediction about hunter’s heading and position and is rewarded with insta kill. To me it doesn’t matter if this happens from the height of a cardboard box: if the hunter’s moves are that transparent, then sparing them those kills won’t make a difference. The fact that so much emphasis is placed on the necessary learning curves for survivors, while there is zero discussion on the merits of challenges/learning curves for hunters is revealing. I’ll point out the obvious again: This kind of reasoning pretends to value balance while really seeking overpowered hunters (For everybody howling “You seek an overpowered survivor”; see my previous posts, I’ve been defending what I interpret to be appropriate buffs and nerfs on both sides well before stuck spits could be negated by survivor shield use, which needed to be reigned in for example). With the latest update, the following scenario is common: a hunter picking a predictable route and the survivor’s drop attack just being off by the width of a hair results in the same kind of game play: inaccuracy of hunter rewarded and survivor nerf is equivalent to removing drop attack as an option for survivors, given that survivors feel only a fraction of their attacks to be effective when compared to before the update. Double standard. The net effect over time is that folks will stop trying to use what is arguably one of the funnest survivor mechanisms of the game. Indeed, if great = leaving survivors in many situations without viable options, then indeed they've "Made Dying Light great again". But as you've noted, it took a couple of weeks for that greatness to sink in, which indicates the kind of change that makes the game harder to learn and less fun to play; and while EXACTLY THIS may be the kind of fun appropriate to competitive play styles and huge frequencies/hours sunk into the game, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of folks seek a good time online and are neither interested nor impressed by the kinds of play styles that seek some warped sense of skill only to lord it over others online. Ok, then share with us the exact criteria to make the distinction between imbalanced, poorly designed games, and the kind of game play situations that require "get better and deal with it". I believe that's a personal thing and that people should not play games that aren't fun. By valuing challenge in itself, I should play infinite games against supercomputers that I can't win because it would be more challenging. And by the same measure, if humans are overpowered then hunters should enjoy the challenge of winning 1 game in a thousand against weaker playing survivors. "C'mon you whiners, where's you're sense of adventure?" works both ways but is also an admission that the game's quality is so poor, you need hundreds of hours to realize it. Therefore, bad patch for the community as a whole, even if excellent patch for us.
  11. Agree with majority of what your saying. The kinds of solutions in that video are indeed closer to the kind of response you'd expect from most developers. It could also be last hurrah time, where it'd be interesting to see how many folks keep playing if developers totally mess with settings and user preferences. As a developer you'd be able to measure how much or how little you have to listen to community feedback; e.g. whether you have to listen to all that noise at all, to keep folks in active online play. If you discover that folks keep playing regardless of the tweaks made patching, then the need for community and its feedback looses meaning because you could just pretend to listen and save more money on testing, gathering online feedback, and patching. Veterans get sick of the thing, and there will always be the new hot shots more than willing to swing their uhm... police batons around proclaiming to be the best, with new profiles, fresh names, offering to teach others, and be founding members of the next wave of groups. A way that would balance the thing is have hunters search for yellow, violet, orange, and green crayons in police vans to farm for their spits. Last I heard - omg hold on to your seats ladies and gentlemen - every hunter dupes their spits automatically with help from the developers in every game! Then I'd be less annoyed for example at teleporting bombers on high platforms, as I'd know that the hunter had to search seven police vans with angry veterans roaming the map and complaining about balance for that magical yellow bomber spit crayon (just two per backpack- then find a vendor lol) after finding six silent sacrificial short swords. I kid of course: I wouldn't wish that kind of reward system on anybody.
  12. Yes, I used to argue similarly. However, "giving time to actually playing" is the prize that Techland seeks and while "making the best of something and finding the best solution" is perhaps a healthy philosophy in life, it also provides justification to continue to play bad games and nourish bad habits: You could ALWAYS argue "you don't believe enough in the game, give it more time", even with the worst games and their development. You can always argue that there is more to learn and that anybody with a critical voice is not competent or intelligent enough to understand. But this isn't a university where you get rewarded with a degree and new possible means of life and freedoms for your success. This is entertainment and players pay developers for fun at their screens, not the other way around. Apparently folks who have some experience, don't feel an appetite or a need to relearn a game when they've already done so for dozens of patches, dozens of times. Not even because of wins or losses, some mechanism, cool down etc. but because they grow tired of the game changing under their feet without their control. That's why I hesitate playing atm and recommending it to friends: the game can be fun for some play styles with certain settings, but the bugs that never get fixed (e.g. the goons respawning, hunter climbing every damned edge on a hill, horde mechanism relying on magical bombers that travel at bullet speed appearing anywhere) persist below a helpless looking, constantly shifting patching strategy. And for developers this works because there will be a new influx of players, not acquainted with how all the patching makes the overall experience less desirable, that will be happy with some current patch, playing and promoting it for free. Finally, players vote for or against games with the time they give it and it is normal and healthy imho for players to not give their precious time away easily and complain. Especially when people don't enjoy the experience, the most logical thing for them to do is to make their complaints known, and perhaps reduce, limit, or stop their play. Then the experienced folk who decide to give their time away regardless of the changes or what they've said/thought in the past, can play with the beginners who don't know any better and everybody will live in a better world with the kinds of games they want 24/7. The downside is that we loose credibility by complaining about a change and playing as though it never happened. Then our opinions become echo chambers for whatever developers do without getting a single thing for our precious time, experience etc.
  13. What an informative thread. Great to hear that people are having fun with the changes in new ways. I say this without irony: people should post videos of these games where they enjoy playing as the challenged survivor against.... what? The kind of casual players folks make fun of? How is this not a surprise? It appears that when many folks say they want balance, they mean they want an overpowered night hunter, which is the opposite of any conception of "challenge" that I am familiar with. So why did we reign in GP spit combo (obviously overpowered) only to increase spit radius and blast to this extent? This seems to bias the game more towards spamming spits indiscriminately. I'm not sure why this is a better state of affairs than permitting the spit combo. At first glance, the play is even more transparent and predictable: hunter engages with spits and shield and will be rewarded disproportionately for less accuracy. And I say this as somebody who thinks the damage modifications to hunter seemed fair and measured. Increasingly the balance discussions in general -in many games- seem a fine a way to keep people hooked and engaged with sub optimally tuned games while skimping on testing to milk community feedback. That's why I won't get into details anymore and state only the obvious: the amount of work, precision, and effort a hunter has to invest to win isn't equal to what is expected of survivors. As to all the positive testimonials: I'm happy for everybody but would offer some perspective on all the love... for some of us do realize that we wouldn't be in a place where our hunters feel a new dawn emerging if the game were balanced. And if we're happy today the only thing this guarantees, is that come next patch...
  14. Why are folks giving up their hard earned experience for nothing? Isn't this kind of topic/subject meant for testers who usually get paid? Knowing some of you guys from playing, you'd never give up your nests/lives for nothing. I kid of course. What a remarkable community effort and what generous Christmas advice for Techland. Now I'll weigh in with some worthless 2 cents just to balance things out a little. Minor bothers of late are: encounters where folks who are modding pak and using trainers etc. not being up front with their experimentation in public. Untrained eyes and inexperienced folks won't be able to spot the red flags, particularly of more sophisticated modding, that lead them to poor/impossible user experiences. I've seen members of all major groups up to such things, so Techland as well as group organizers could perhaps be more vigilant of such a fact, which makes play less fun for folks who have neither time nor inclination to play in such fashion + reflects badly on the larger group. Getting rid of DFA has been an issue popping up in my games. On the fence on this one because its one of the funnest mechanisms in the game, even if I'll grant that in certain situations it's op. Say a hunter is learning the ropes against 4 survivors. And yet an accurate prediction of a sophisticated hunter's moves deserves a reward. Removing/reducing it would provide less incentive for survivors getting their feet wet with the game mode. In addition to this, most of the measures suggested here benefit veterans and players with experience. As a more casual player who opens their lobby to the public merely to burn time, uninterested in social stuff, competitions, and reputation; I'd like weaker survivors to be less of a liability because I don't enjoy kicking people for lack of experience and I don't enjoy losing streaks because I play publicly either. Indeed, perhaps more fundamental aspects of the game could be looked at, but for that I want cash up front!
  15. Looks like fun! Good games and good luck to all participants, arbiters, and moderators (I imagine this to be a clean event and therefore assume these to be independent; i.e. participant cannot moderate/arbitrate, call a foul, call cheat/abort/unfair play, formulate rules etc. for obvious reasons) and hope to see some footage and buzz, whether as broadcasts or video/edits. Make sure to post em (here, steam, other forums + everywhere) for those who can't make it while pushing for consensus on the patch changes that would make game play more attractive.