Chickeninja

Members
  • Content count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Chickeninja last won the day on February 20

Chickeninja had the most liked content!

About Chickeninja

  • Rank
    Volatile

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,072 profile views
  1. Chickeninja

    BtZ Feedback Wanted: 03/21/2018

    Why are the fonts automatically greyed out on my end btw? The community is diverse as can be seen by the difference in feedback from experienced players all the way to the feedback of people who have just played a few hours. Experienced players tend to forget that management of a game for the broad variety of users and their different levels of experience forces compromise between their voices and concerns with those of other players; however inexperienced or uninformed they may be. If the community were more cohesive and homogeneous the need for ugly compromises would diminish. It either is or is not an exploit, by which I mean the community and devs have to come to some understanding (or disagreement) of whether the exploit is a valid form of emergent game play or not. If people find such a mechanism to be consistent with the gaming experience, they have come to appreciate from the game, and there is broad consensus that its use is managed responsibly without abuse, then the mechanism should be accepted as a valid, standard, and thus legal move within the game mode. If not, then advocates find themselves supporting a feature that is often overpowered and abused, especially in the hands of folks that don't care what community and/or devs think concerning the issue. And I remember feeling "wow what a bummer for hunter movement" and being part of the critical voices. As for quickening response when something is off: if the community spoke and interacted among itself with more consensus, then it'd be able to escalate things quicker. If the clueless types you mentioned above are not clued in, then their complaints become justifiable: how would they know? And how would the developer not be forced into a difficult and hopeless compromise? TL:DR With bit more calm, will towards cooperation, and understanding whoever we deem to be clueless, we can remove at least some toxicity, need for secrecy, useless compromise or other measures that make the game mode less enjoyable. Give folks access to the mechanisms and histories that affect their gaming experience and ultimately let them be the judge. Clueless people can learn. Experts can become so busy defending their expertise that they forget the big picture or to have fun etc. Both sides need each other and with a bit more vigilance on staying cool with folks, things like sub-optimal patches can be addressed more effectively and with better response times. That is, if we approach things with a cooler head + without always having to call folks names or accuse them etc.
  2. Chickeninja

    BtZ Feedback Wanted: 03/21/2018

    That makes my point: such information is not accessible to everybody. And why should anybody have to "actively talk to" who you or I consider to be "good players", or even watch videos of such players? Tackling is a basic and essential mechanism of the game mode. It's as if when somebody's starting a board - or video game, they have to first enter into relationships with some allegedly good players, to figure out how to move pieces or roll dice. A game that fails to clarify its own basic rules and mechanisms speaks for itself. That said, I do know of information that was volunteered here in the past, where Techland seemed less than graceful in implementing what seemed to be valid points the community made and indeed, they mostly proceeded with a bulldozer's sensitivity. I'd just watch myself before blaming anybody. Devs have higher ups too and who knows what their agendas or budgets are? E.g. What if devs are not given sufficient resources or time to optimize the game mode in favor of some other Techland projects, and the community gets its panties in a twist because patching the game mode at this point is low priority or some similar scenario? That sort of statement doesn't clarify Techland's stance on the status of exploits. Particularly the part about where the community has to shut its mouth for fear of bad updates and the wrong nerfs and buffs. That's damaging for players, their experience, as well as studios and their developers. In the long run, everybody loses. This dynamic has to be reversed in favor of more transparent and sensitive approaches. Blaming each other and keeping secrets just fans the flames and leads to worse patches, as everybody's seen by now.
  3. Chickeninja

    BtZ Feedback Wanted: 03/21/2018

    This is a kind of point however, that illustrates an issue with BtZ mode: on the one hand, you can argue "that's just part of the game now and therefore necessary", but this is a liberal argument that assumes everybody has access to perfect information and will use that information responsibly "within the spirit of the game". But a large number of hunters I'd say, have no access to the ability or the information necessary to perform it, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the tedious skill tree restriction, which is fine as a training method, when somebody opts for that; but if folks want more matches, then the hunter skill tree may lead to folks quitting their zombie careers and therefore decreasing total match numbers, as they might not want to put in 50 or so hours to deserve the right to feel what a fully specced hunter feels like in the first place, besides the unfortunate beginning hunters that want to rank up and that too often only have the bro brigades of highly experienced survivors to contend with, with little to no abilities at the start of their skill tree... essentially this encourages cheating and using others' saves etc. for hunters. There are a few ways to instant tackle, and yet I rarely see the responsible "within the spirit of the game use" you appear to assume. More community effort and coordination is required, and if the exploit is legit, as you seem to assume, then their mechanics should be featured in more hints than "cars lessen impact of falls" and be part of updating said hints. Same of course for survivor exploits but one veers into the costs of such arguments: if the game mode requires dozens of exploits to be legitimized as emergent gameplay, then the occurrences of overpowered combos and moves in various situations multiply... which require more buffs and nerfs, which in turn require more exploits to balance them out and on and on. The attitude of folks keeping exploits to themselves and not finding responsible ways of sharing them for the community to survive and enjoy themselves as a whole, with higher numbers of quality matches for everybody, is however clearly against the spirit of the game mode in this state. That is unless you want to be forever overpowered. I have no interest in such and often play public with weak survivors or whoever seems to be around, and observe far too many high level hunters AND survivors hiding exploits from each other for transparent attempts at maintaining advantages for themselves and their local groups. Whether the game mode, perhaps in future incarnations or patches, clarifies itself by reducing the number of exploits, with serious optimization OR whether it embraces these exploits as a fun thing that defines the game: I don't lean either way. That the community not disintegrate and that folks can enjoy that fact and their games more, seems more relevant. What appears to not be a "bad exploit" also depends on experience btw. What may appear balanced and valid to somebody with a thousand hours may not be so for folks who cannot access how to perform certain moves, combos etc. in certain situations. Informational advantage implies the game is imbalanced before the match begins, and with so many exploits and cheating opportunities, if we value genuine game play or have competitive aspirations, then this works against the game mode's survival, as nobody enjoys games being at an informational disadvantage to promote the ego trips of a few confused folks. This forum, despite the spam, has countered this tendency despite the many disagreements with folks sharing exploits, cheats they experience others using etc. Fun games to everybody volunteering their time and information here and thanks to everybody posting and pointing towards how we believe the game mode to be optimized (keep it up!), along with the devs of course, who face far more pressures/difficulties in their professional lives than the constant whining and complaining of hunters and survivors around these parts.
  4. Chickeninja

    We are back on the 1/12 Update, temporarily.

    Felt it IMMEDIATELY in game just a few minutes ago. Zaid flares leaving survivors hanging, survivors with much fewer drop attacks, and the amount of hunter spits/regen. I accused folks of playing 1/12 on purpose. Guess I'm the idiot then. And without people knowing what's happening, they have and will continue to blame the game, which is unfortunate.
  5. Chickeninja

    BtZ Feedback Wanted: 03/21/2018

    Still not much desire for 3v1s or 4v1s from both sides on PC, given Nightmare difficulty survivor settings. Feels like Hunter charity and although I enjoy making hunters feel good about their skills by playing survivor pinata, it's starting to feel like "bad work - hunter therapy" instead of "good game". Hope things get optimized and wish folks fun out there nonetheless. Unfortunately for fans of the game mode, the record is starting to indicate that such optimization is rare. So people wouldn't be too wrong to dial back expectations because "yes, there are updates and fixes due to community feedback", but also "yes, response time is very slow"- that is if problems get addressed in the first place, which isn't a given.
  6. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.
  7. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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?
  8. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.
  9. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.
  10. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.
  14. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.
  15. Chickeninja

    Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018

    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.