BlizzBlazz
BlizzBlazz
About
- Username
- BlizzBlazz
- Joined
- Visits
- 97
- Last Active
Comments
-
There's no real reason to add more perk slots rather than just buffing current perks (on the assumption that it's necessary in the first place). Killer and Survivor perks are already not meant to be 1 for 1. They get to be different in overall efficacy. Adding more perk slots just makes it even more difficult to balance and more troublesome to introduce new content. They also probably don't want newer players dealing with that many unknowns at once.
If they buff individual perks, they only really have to change the ones they want to and maybe a few outliers that interact in strange ways, and they can do it piece meal. If they outright give more perk slots, they pull the floor out from under themselves and have to change just about everything. Worse, they're just about going in blind until after the changes are made. It's just not practical without a very good reason in mind.
-
@Valik said:
After playing him for a little bit - I'm often revealed by survivors that I am unable to stalk at all.
In addition, his chase music is so bad now it gives me vertigo.
I'm not playing Ghostie... I just want the pain to go away.
And... really...
Survivors may get annoyed that they cannot reveal him, but the counter to the killer is that if you LOOK AT them, they cannot use their power.
LOOK. AT. THEM.
Imagine if looking at the Wraith made them unable to cloak or stay cloaked. Looking at a trapper made them unable to trap. Hag or Nurse cant TP while you look at them. Bubba's Chainsaw turns into a pool noodle while you look at him, etc.
Sure, survivors may complain that it's a bit wonky - fair enough, many systems are in need of little touch ups.
But unfair? It takes less time to reveal him than it takes for him to fully use his power - and his Stalk is useless if you're injured.
It doesn't take much to look in the killer's direction.
And if the only power that the killer has is that they have no terror radius / red stain for certain periods of time WHEN and only WHEN you can't look at them... then it isn't exactly a contender for the most useful power in the game.
I agree. Revealing makes sense as a deterrence mechanic, not unlike Sadako's 7 pips. Obviously not to the same extreme, so reveals should actually be more of a possibility, but mostly just to direct how GhF conducts that prechase interaction and not to consistently achieve it. It gives everyone involved direction and sound ques, encourages GhF bob and weave behind terrain, and all in all gives GhF encounters some personality while ever so slightly rewarding the survivor for being aware at a distance.
I think tunnel visioning on the survivor experience of actually succeeding at a reveal really undermines how difficult and luck based it is to remain entirely unnoticed against four people with substantially better camera angles than you. It just ends up being excessive and makes GhF's power feel at the beck and call of the survivors.
-
@Anara said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2924544#Comment_2924544
Thats what happened to my thread saying making David gay instead of creating a new character is a mistake.
They just closed my thread saying I made an argument and not a discussion. They also said "everybody should enjoy our first step into this direction".
The actual wording was "for now we should be happy a first step has finally been taken" and you warping that more than proves the point they were trying to make about looking for an argument rather than a discussion.
-
The narrative with this has been interesting because of how many people are saying this is essentially nothing but riskless pandering, but it's stirred up an abhorrent amount of drama for a character that they're not likely to see a fresh slew of financial returns on either. David's not behind a paywall. You likely already have cosmetics for him if you wanted them. It did have risk, very clearly, and internally I'm certain that they were aware of it. It really isn't likely to benefit them a whole heck of a lot either.
I know sexuality retconning has happened all over the place and has been frowned upon, but DBD ultimately started out as a game starved of lore and characterization beyond just setting a modicum of framing for perks and powers. It simply didn't need much of it in the first place. We got a couple of surveys asking if expanding on story elements was something we wanted, and unless I'm mistaken the average answer was yes (mine included), and honestly it's been largely for the better even if it is a background element.
We have a number of characters that have been improved upon considerably with tome updates (Doctor, Trickster), and a few characters desperately needing further touch ups even if it requires substantial retconning ( I am looking at you, Hag ). David isn't exactly an established icon without room for exploration. This is no different than any other story aspect, unless you let yourself be bothered by it and jump to negativity out of your own volition. There's a lot of assuming of what the intention was here, and what other people's reaction might be, but ultimately all of the conflict comes of as unapologetically silly.
-
@Anara said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2923690#Comment_2923690
Its good for those games (I dont play it) but my concerns are about Behaviour saying they are supportive about WHOLE lgbtq community, but guess what ? They are not.
I made a mistake they only support masculine gay David 🥵🥵🥵🥵
You've given up on being constructive and instead are speaking in absolutes because you didn't get exactly what appeals to you specifically. That's on you. Do better.