This is a damn joke.
I wish we still had the downvote button just for threads like this.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, the supposed complaint is that in this person's testing they believe post-change Enduring recovers from pallets 9 frames slower than pre-change Enduring, an amount of time extremely hard for humans to even recognize the difference between.
The thing is, we are 1/3 of a second away from what the devs promised. That, you can tell the difference between. 150ms is something you can experience as well.
Okay... is this accurate? Because if so, I thought I was going [BAD WORD] insane lol. I thought it felt slower since the change but I just kept thinking 'I guess it's just visual?'.
I've been taking Enduring off of more and more killers, please god revert this if it's true devs :'(
I explained my testing in the description of the video. I believe 100% that this is as accurate as you can get.
It's supposed to reduce pallet stuns from 2 seconds to 1 second. It effectively does this. I don't agree with your methodology for testing/recording this; but the amount of time is small enough that human reaction time after the stun makes significantly more of a difference.
Every tiny millisecond counts when it comes to Enduring, else how would people even notice this in the first place? And the devs nerfed Enduring to not affect DS or Head On, and claimed that its effect on pallets was actually being slightly buffed overall. You don't see a problem if instead they nerfed it?
At no point has Enduring ever needed a nerf when it comes to pallet stuns.
Btw @Financial_Stability thanks for doing this, I've been wondering if anyone would do the precise before and after comparison and I'm glad you did.
What about the test is inaccurate if you don't agree with it if you don't mind me asking? 1/3 of a second is plenty noticeable. Heck 15% of a second is noticeable.
The timing of the animation might be off. Since you don't know when the stun actually 'starts' You seemed to be counting from the time the survivor goes to grab the pallet down. Which may not be considered 'stun'
He says he's going from the time the power UI disappears, wouldn't that be consistent with only recording the stun?
I timed as soon as any interaction on the bottom UI disappeared. This is when you will be locked into the stun. The end is when you have the ability to interact, so you will get UI elements. These are done at the frame they disappear/reappear, so at worst a margin of error of 1~2/60th of a second.
Well you both have to see it as a process. Code can only execute a few statements at a time.
UI Disappears -> You lose power to your character -> Stun Animation -> You regain power -> You see UI. You might be 'stunned' until the affect is given back but the actual stun that happens might be not what is referred to as the entire pallet stun.
I mean I guess? You'll still catch up to the guy either way in the chase, it doesn't look too bad for enduring. You'll still be able to be present in the chase and not lose the person. It doesn't look that affecting.
It may be functional, but as it stands the devs did the exact opposite of what they promised and goofed up the timing. It should be a 1/3rd of a second faster than what it is.
I guess? The 1/3 I guess is huge but I really don't see it affecting a killer while in a chase, and even so with Spirit Fury. No one runs enduring often anymore without spirit fury. This though, the malfunction and f up on a perk is embarrassing and should be fixed immediately.
Why does it matter anyway?!
In my opinion pallets aren’t a threat, and are only there to provide survivors with a false sense of security. Take the stun, break the pallet, resume patrol if it looks unlikely it’ll take too much time to resume the chase.
Pallets aren't a threat? The most widely used and valued defense mechanism for survivors isn't important? Could you refuse to acknowledge the problem any harder than this?
I'm amazed at how many people can't intelligently argue with the video and the way it was measured but still insist that the OP is wrong. Arguing that he faked it would be reasonable. Arguing that this proves nothing is just blatant arrogance.
Do you guys REALLY think ANYTHING the devs do to this game (in 2019) is UNINTENTIONAL!? They KNOW this game EXTREMELY well. I realized that after the "Supposed" Ash and Ghostface "Leaks". I'm confident enough to say, I believe the only thing(s) that may be accidental, would be the bugs / glitches, but even those are purposely added sometimes. Any so called "Change" that is made these days, was meant. Believe that.
Just gonna ping you @Peanits. Because if this is true then the developers are just blatantly lying in our faces again.
Relax, it's probably just another bug.
Thanks for recording, OP. I approve of posts that are more than just whining without evidence.
I'll give this a crack with a friend in KYF while waiting for EAC to get their [BAD WORD] together and respond to my appeal, and record it to ssee.
OH SHIET A WHOLE 0.09 of a second nerf?! OMG!!!
Is anybody actually surprised?
I’m not disputing the claim that Enduring may have been changed.
I’m simply asking “why does it matter?”
Pallets, and being stunned by them, only matter (and are falsely threatening) to killers under the false pretence that every chase MUST end in a down.
If that is so, it's only because someone [BAD WORD] up the coding.
I'd like to see Enduring get a secondary effect such as being able to read the aura of the survivor who pallet stunned you for 5 seconds.
Ever see anyone running brutal strength? no...
because the dev's increased base breaking time but also nerfed enduring so it is slower than it was.
it all matters and all makes a difference.
@Peanits any comment on this please?
Just for the sake of consistency, wouldn't it have been better to test it with the same killer? You never know if different powers activate/deactivate in slightly different moments.
It is weird that you sat that pallets are not a threat, yet they have the power to dissuade the Killer from continuing a chase. What is your definition of "being a threat," then?