ChirpingCat
ChirpingCat
About
- Username
- ChirpingCat
- Joined
- Visits
- 12
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Slashstreetboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1544984#Comment_1544984
I´ll frame this as a permanent reminder of your infantility.
So... you called me an Infant for pointing out a logical fallacy in your response and illustrating the point by applying the same principle to other contexts? You do know that using ad hominem attacks is a fast way to lose a debate, right?
Honestly I don't mind, I just wish you used a better insult; Infant is the type of lackluster insult I'd expect from a person between the ages of 13 and 21-years old, who is simply trying too hard to sound smarter and more mature than they really are.
Though I must admit, I am pretty flattered that you felt my post was frame-worthy - You've made my day! ☺️
-
( Removed this message because it was far too crass; Hilarious that BHVR approved it in moderation however )
-
@pandorayr said:
Survivors use decisive strike to repair when they are rescued from the hook it seems to me an abuse for this reason my proposal to add a small inconvenience if the survivor decides repair a gen.
After being unhooked or unhooking yourself, Decisive Strike will become active and usable for 40/50/60 seconds.
While Decisive Strike is active, when grabbed by the Killer, succeed a Skill Check Skill Check}} to automatically escape the Killer's grasp and stun them for 5 seconds.
Succeeding or failing the Skill Check will disable Decisive Strike.Successfully stunning the Killer will result in you becoming the Obsession.
Repair a generator disables Decisive strike automatically for the next 60 seconds.
Increases the odds of being the Obsession.
The Killer can only be obsessed with one Survivor at a time.
Decisive Strike has a weakness; If I don't get found, downed and picked up by the killer within 60 seconds of the unhook then I've wasted one of my four perk slots for nothing in return. Not tunneling or slugging is the counter and has always been the counter, and even then, slugging still creates pressure that benefits the killer.
This is why high-rank killer streamers are very nonchalant about DS; They know it's out there, they've adapted their game to suit it... It's a lot like NoED in that sense, in that it requires a different play style from survivors and yet people piss and moan about it all the time.
-
@Slashstreetboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1544948#Comment_1544948
Well first off it doesn´t really matter which survivor skin you use if you have the perks on them that you want. And secondly it was specifically designed as such. Survivors get the oppurtunity to exchange useful information and plans while the Killer is granted the chance to adjust the loadout if needed.
Honestly I don´t even think that´s unfair even when I play survivor. Your opinion may differ but in the end it´s the way the devs intended it to be at the core of their lobby design.
This is a feedback forum where we discuss ideas and give feedback, regardless of Developer intentions. Hence your attempt to refute my suggestion based on the status-quo is quite an interesting tight rope to walk in a place that is fundamentally built on the assumption that the Developer isn't perfect and things can always be better.
"Good news everyone! SWF, DS, Moris, Keys, Iridescent Heads and NoEd are fine because at its core this is the way the developer wanted things to work!" - Slashstreetboy
-
@Mandy said:
I must admit, I really don't see the issue with NOED - it means the killer is playing with only 3 perks throughout the match and survivors can prevent NOED by doing the totems in the match. I was only ever bothered by NOED in the days where it was constant after the last gen was done and there was no way to disable it, and it was always run with old Bitter Murmur. I'm always surprised that people dislike NOED so much, because it's so easy to disable before it even comes into play!
If the expectation is that survivors do bones, why isn't the number of totems remaining clearly communicated to survivors via a UI element or in-game feature? Saw a brilliant suggestion the other day about a candle shrine being in the basement, where the number of lit candles represented totems left on the map.
-
@TheForgotten said:
Swf should only be allowed in custom games.
Be careful what you wish for:
If SWF were relegated to custom games, a wave of near universal killer nerfs and survivor buffs would soon follow... probably targeting reducing he killer's ability to find survivors, track survivors and the gen progression of survivors.
Killer-mains seem to cut the argument both ways: They despise SWF as cheating and easy wins, they say that SWF results in unwinnable game, but then fail to concede that SWF wins are contributing to the statistical balance data being used to balance the game. If you remove SWF, you remove a key pillar that props up the survivor's overall win percentage to justify all these recent killer buffs.
@slunder said:
@Slashstreetboy the thing is: maybe remove killer lock, which is dumb, and also killers would not necessarily dodge, but rather put a better killer and a stronger build.
Survivors don't get to adjust their Survivor choice based upon knowledge or rank of the Killer, so why should the Killer be able to customize their killer selection based upon information in the pre-game lobby?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1460849#Comment_1460849
Of course a majority of people will use something that gives them a distinct advantage. God forbid they have to actually play the game without knowing what's not happening to them.
Personally I think they should just implement voice comms in game for all survivors; At least then they can start balancing on the basis that survivors (Solo or SWF) can talk to each other.
-
@MusicNerd_TC said:
Just let us opt out. Don't give me that bull of "nobody will opt in". We don't want to deal with your absolute BS that makes the game unfun and unbalanced.
Sure, while we're at it can I please opt out of Mories, Ghost Face, No Ed and everything else I don't personally like? That would be great. Gideons and Lery's as well. Ta. Oh and BBQ, that would be awesome.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1460375#Comment_1460375
The game is dying with SWF. Also the game was fine without it back when it didn't exist in 2016.
Odd. If you believe the killers on these forums, SWF makes up for 95% of the player base and they can't get a match without 'toxic' SWF being in it.
So yes, by that logic I think @Vixley is right to suggest the game would be kaput without the SWF players who are ostensibly prolonging the life of the game out of a desire to play a game with friends more so than because they're die-hard DBD fans.
-
@RayrafLPP said:
So we have 8 Hex Perks atm and one of the biggest downsides of them is when survivors spawn on them so one perk of the killer just gets removed.
So How about this: Hexes are put on random dull totems when the effect comes into place.
So what would it mean for the 8 Hexes?
Noed --> stays as it is because it does exactly that
Thrill of the hunt --> activates when another totem is lit or someone starts working on a dull totem
Ruin --> gets lit when someone lets go off a gen
Devour hope --> gets lit after first stack of it
Third seal --> lights up after the first survivor is hit with a basic attack
Lullaby --> same as devour
Haunted grounds --> starts lit
Retrebution --> starts lit
No.
Instead, assign Hexes to totems at the start of the game but make them appear as unlit until first trigger/token. In this scenario, survivors are not quickly alerted to the fact that "Hey look a Hex totem" when they spawn next to a lit totem, but should they randomly try to break it anyway, gives them the chance (But not the innate knowledge) that it could actually do some tangible good.
This should encourage players to do bones, including unlit bones, thus reducing NoEd related salt.
-
@Stuballs89 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1406817#Comment_1406817
You are obviously a troll. And a Donald Trump supporting troll at that.
I feel nothing but pity for you.
Apologies for the Necropost, but this was too good to ignore...
I don't actually live in North America, support Donald Trump or have any opinion on US politics for that matter... And it might come as some surprise to you that North America only accounts for approximately 7% of the world's population and hence, automatically assuming I'm a Trump supporter is a pretty unsafe bet that shows that your skills in the laws of probability are almost as bad as your skill in law.
Oh and keep the pity, it's a precious commodity best used on yourself.
Edit: Oh! It's actually only 5% now, not 7% - Whoops!
-
@Blightwood said:
I feel like your point of view is from a new player's or extremely casual player's perspective. You are right that killer is easier than survivor in low ranks, but thats about it. With growing survivor skill level the game balance shifts more towards survivors having the upper hand. If you have a really bad experience as survivor, try adding other survivors you played with as friends and team up with them for future matches. The fact that the queue times for Killer are much shorter compared to survivor, even though you need four survivors to match with one killer to start a match just proves how hard it is to play killer in red ranks. I suggest you play at least 500 hours and then re-evaluate the games' balancing. I hope you understand that dbd can't be balanced around rank 15-20 because these players are the minority and it would make higher ranks (where most of the players sit) unplayable.
Side note: When you declared "pallet looping" as not part of the game it made me chuckle
This is a pretty comical post; So you're suggesting that the answer here to acheive balance at low ranks is that he teams up with friends, in a game where killers are constantly crying about SWF and wanting it to be nerfed into the ground?
@MysterTal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/169151/survivors-need-to-be-buffed
Oh yeah?
How about you put your money where your mouth is?
- Record your gameplay.
- Yes, YOUR gameplay. Don't come back at me with "just watch Streamer X, they 4k at Rank -1000 with nothing but a mop and no eyes". YOUR. Gameplay.
- Play Killer (any Killer) without any Perks or Addons.
- You MUST 4k every match for a total of at least 10 matches in a row.
- Matches at Ranks 15-20 do not count. Matches against Survivors at ranks 15-20 do not count.
- Match recording must include the entire match, no editing bits out - and must include the end-game screen showing the ranks.
- Upload the recordings to YouTube and post the links here.
Looking forward to never hearing from you again!
You do realise that "Get 4K every time" is not a indicator of balance, right?
Better figure is to get an average number of kills across the games as killers aren't meant to get "Four kills every time or its a loss", even the devs indicate as much. Even if he got three kills every time, it would still show a killer-sided imbalance.
-
No. DS does not need to be nerfed, NoED is fine as is except for one change:
Display the count of Totems remaining on the map the same way the count of generators is displayed.
Killers constantly say they want survivors to do bones instead of gen rushing and this is the only reason they use NoED. So let's treat totems as an objective like any other and display the remaining totems count. Knowing there are totems left on the map gives survivors the incentive to "Keep looking" despite the fact that two loops around the map haven't found any. The incentive to keep looking takes them away from doing gens and results in a longer game. It also reduces the salt at the end of a game with NoED because survivors can only have made a concious decision ignore totems at that point.
-
@Stuballs89 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1406017#Comment_1406017
That's why I said I am looking to build a case. You could be one hundred percent correct and this could be an exercise in futility. I see that there could be cause for concern based on the user agreement and Canadian contract law. I am not certain, and as I say I am only studying it. As I say my lecturer was interested in helping me look into. Even if it's only for practice and a learning experience.
Then again, if we look into this and see that there might be a rock solid case to be made then I might just go ahead and file suit. Not saying that I definitely will.
I appreciate the input though as it does serve as food for thought. Sorry if I offended you in some way, I mean the tone of your reply was a bit agitated. Never meant to piss anyone off. Just broaching the subject as I think it needs to be discussed.
I am pretty certain that in the section regarding modding, it mentions using third party programs to gain an advantage. I would argue that discord and SWF are under that bracket of being a third party program and being an unfair advantage.
Ill let you know how it goes after I look into it more.
P.S. I'm not stupid enough to pour money into a lawsuit I don't think I can win, which, once again, is why I said I was 'building' a case. I didn't say I had one.
Let me save you a lot of trouble:
If you continue jerking yourself to the idea of suing BHVR you're going to lose.
...
Yes, even more than you lose to SWF lobbies like me and my friends, cuck.
-
@Stuballs89 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1245898#Comment_1245898
I study law and according to my lecturers this constitutes a breach of contract. So I am currently building a case to take Behavior to court. The user agreement states that no third party programs or tools are to be used that would give you an unfair advantage in the game. This includes but is not specific to comms usage on discord. As a company that runs an online game that they advertise and sell, they are providing a service and as far as I am aware, in Canada, whilst providing a service which is advertised, the product or service has to be up to scratch as far as what you have promised and what you deliver. Since they have never been vocal about this issue I am building a case to sue them. As a customer and consumer of this product I feel like my gameplay experience is negatively impacted due to Behaviors lack of response to clear breaches of their user agreement. This aversion to enforcing rules that they have written makes my experience of a service I have purchased worse. It is within their power to fix it but they don't. That is negligence. So...
I suggest you keep studying then because A) You're not a lawyer, and B) Aside from a whole lot of ineffectual wanking I can't see anything to suggest you'd have a case:
- There are no terms within the EULA that could be construed as applying to Voice Communications. Even their cheating clauses are limited to modifying the game directly, so you might want to get your facts together before wasting your (non-existent) money on a cromulent lawsuit. https://store.steampowered.com/eula/381210_eula_0
- Even if there was a clause that could apply, BHVR are not required to enforce any of the rights that it has under the EULA. That is written in plain text. This is also why they include Section D: Waiver, which essentially says that they don't waive a right by not exercising it. Hence terms within the EULA cannot be construed as a consumer guarantee because BHVR openly declare they they're not required to enforce any of the terms, but they reserve the right to do so at their sole discretion.
- Big problem for you: BHVR officially condone using voice communications in SWF due to their Official Discord server having dozens of voice channels specifically for SWF players to communicate with one another. https://discord.gg/nMZKbh
Have fun with your lawsuit; Let me know when you end up bankrupt so I can laugh at you.
-
@plunder said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/141581/ds-change-any-opinons-welcome
Ds is a fine perk. The problem is 4 people should not be able to use it without any repercussion. Basically all they need to do is make 30 secs if you are not the obsession. But if you are it's the normal 60 seconds. Plus it needs to bot activate once the gens are done. Had a game where I got 3 down all three ds me into the safety of the exit.
DS to the safety of the exit? Would you complain about borrowed time, too?
@Vampire said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1193591#Comment_1193591
Its not fine
If a survivor rushes a hook knowing they have DS and will get a free escape or slugged for 60 and get a free heal how is that fair?
Also 60 seconds after unhook? You know how much happens in 60 seconds?
How is it fair if you unhook someone, I chase, knock, hook you and they go for the rescue or a gen and I down them only OH ITS BEEN 59 SECONDS GET DS'ED.
Well if the killer chooses to open the locker than I guess NOED is fine cause a survivor chooses not to do bones.
Hah. No killer is advocating for a NoED change, so you can count on zero survivor support for changes to DS.
@BigBrainMegMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1194488#Comment_1194488
No one's debating whether or not NOED is fair, I find it okay after the Ruin nerf.
But this whole "I down another survivor while another is on the hook and I still get DS'ed" is very rare, I haven't seen anyone post it on the forums and I doubt it happens often. It's the killer typical excuse, "I wasn't even tunneling, someone else was on hook and I still got DS'ed."
Bull.
We are now, it would seem.
-
@Xzan said:
- Show SWF in Lobby (for both sides)
- Show Perks of other Survivors in Lobby
- Rematch-Option (1x time use, to prevent farming)
- Show some Stats at the end of the Match (Pallets broken, longest/shortest chase etc.)
- KYF should have an solo option to explore maps
Show SWF in Lobby? That's a can of worms right there designed to allow SWF dodging by killers. Yeah nah.
-
@KoH said:
PROBLEM: Multiple design issues regarding killer/survivor perks, map design, overall structure of gameplay, etc.
SOLUTION: Fire the current design team, entirely.
Simply put, the game's been out since 2016. The only reason this game hasn't died due to the ######### design decisions is because there's no real competitor for this kind of niche game type. As soon as a viable game is released that can compete in this genre, this game will go out the door like the hot trash it is.
Gonna Cry? Gonna Piss Your Pants Maybe?
-
@elvangulley said:
Not gonna happen survivors want fast games unless they lose then its unfair and boring
The man speaks truth; Games where I 'lose' are indeed unfair and boring. 😏
Oh, he's right about the "Not Gonna Happen" bit as well.
-
@elvangulley said:
Omg more survivor crying about something will it ever end
Oh we got both kinds; We got Survivor and Killer!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hb2EItHEH4 -
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1193430#Comment_1193430
Yes the facts remain simple: the sole responsibility for a player's information posted by himsef in their profile(an the consequences derived from it) falls whitin the player himself, and nobody else:
https://store.steampowered.com/privacy_agreement/
...any information you share about yourself on your public Steam Profile can be accessed through the Steamworks API, including information that may make you identifiable.
5.5 The Steam community includes message boards, forums and/or chat areas, where users can exchange ideas and communicate with each other. When posting a message to a board, forum or chat area, please be aware that the information is being made publicly available online;
therefore, you are doing so at your own risk.
And it's by all means faster to tweak their own setting in privacy section than asking the devs to do all their work for them
Admire the dedication Skarkio, even if you're really clutching at straws by trying to propose some quasi-legal justification in response to what is fundamentally a question of good player experience. However, your argument is fundamentally flawed yet again for the following reasons:
First, even if this change were a question of contractual law, which it is not, one must remember that the Steam Privacy Policy outlines responsibilities between Valve and users of Steam. It does nothing to minimize or transfer any legal or moral liabilities that BHVR has to its customers, as these are not subject to the agreement concerned. (TLDR: The Privacy Policy is legally and morally irrelevant to the responsibility of BHVR to provide a game that is fit for purpose to consumers)
Secondly, this is not even a question about contractual law, this is a question about "How can we make the game better" - Technically BHVR has no legal responsibility to do anything players want, but I don't presuppose you're suggesting they turn around and say, "NO MORE UPDATES: We're not legally required to change anything so we'll just take your cash and stop improving the game. No Ed, Keys, Moris, Hatch, SWF are all here to stay as is. As are God Loops and Coldwind. Swallow it and give us more money." - Stop being ridiculous. (TLDR: This isn't law school kid. This is about good game design. BHVR are not required to do anything we want, we're merely making suggestions, and this suggestion would make the game experience better - No one has countered that point.)
Thirdly, to demonstrate the difference between Moral/Ethical obligations and Legal obligations: If I worked in retail checkout and a person with disabilities was having issues carrying their bags, technically I'm not required to help as it isn't within the purview of my job description. That person should have come prepared with a support person. However, no one would suggest that is the right thing to do. In this case, the facts outlined in my previous post still apply. Same principle applies here as it does to all reasonable player suggestions. (TLDR: Just because BHVR doesn't have to resolve issues that cause some players grief, doesn't mean they shouldn't. EG: Key tips are displayed to help people know what keys to press even though they could just read the Wiki and this would save developer time.)
Fourthly, If 5 minutes of BHVR's time can save 0.1% of their player base 1 minute and/or the grief of being stream-sniped, stat-sniped, or trolled across games, then the change is worth it. This is elementary math, time spent by the developer vs time saved across the player base, eliminating pain points for players, good customer experience sorta stuff ya know? (TLDR: There's also an economics argument for the change that aligns with providing a good customer experience that remains unrebuffed by contributions thus far.)
Finally, your concerns about "Implementation cost" and "Issue responsibility" do nothing to detract from the validity of the idea and the positive impact it would have on the game. BHVR are more than capable of making their own decision on whether or not they have the time to make the change or whether they want to take ownership of the issue, without you presupposing positions for them / worrying about what is fundamentally their business. Our role on these forums as players is to make suggestions that would improve the game, and then to debate whether or not we like the suggestions, why/why not, how it could be made better etc. (TLDR: Stick to debating the idea, the positive/negative impact it will have on the game, and leave the implementation cost, issue responsibility and prioritization concerns to BHVR - That's their job, not yours.)
-
@Leatherbilly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1193440#Comment_1193440
Incorrect. I consented to join, I did not consent to stay.
I'm not saying 4k, tired of this straw man, just derails.the discussion across partisan lines. I want to not automatically lose at the map selection RNG. Until that's fixed I'm not wasting my time on certain maps.
Well if that's your puerile attitude then I'd recommend that you uninstall DBD and go back to playing with your Lego set. Also I'm curious what your definition of 'losing' is, since the game has no such concept as win or lose.
BHVR: Nothing to see here, just a whinging baby trying not to get punished.
-
Personally I've never understood why so many Killer's have a problem with tea-bagging;
Are our lives all that pathetic that spamming an animation in a video game actually offends us? I mean... Really?
-
Pile on: No, you've agreed to play a game by joining, now see it through regardless of whether or not conditions are favorable to your chances of 'winning'. (Winning in quotes because killers seem to act like killing anything less than all four survivors is a loss.)
-
Yes, this change would take all of 5 minutes to implement.
The reason for this is BHVR simply need to open their development IDE, find the class file responsible for the generation of the pre-game lobby UI, find the method that includes printing the names, and comment out the lines of code that actually show the names. From there they'd simply need to commit the change to their code repository so their continuous integration server can build an artifact etc. This is by no means a complicated or time-consuming process.
With regard to time for debug, release to steam etc; These are Release overheads that are static regardless of how many code revisions are in the release, and no one is suggesting that BHVR release a version of the game with just this change in it. Conflating Development overheads with Release overheads makes it pretty clear to any knowledgeable person that you possess very little development knowledge and experience. If this is a space that interests you, it would be best to read up on Agile and Waterfall development methodologies, in addition to learning to code and contributing to some open-source software projects to gain some experience.
But the facts of this remain simple:
- The OP has demonstrated a use-case where displaying player names in the pre-game lobby has caused negative outcomes for streamers.
- There are also other negative outcomes that having player names visible in the pre-game lobby facilitates, such as stat sniping and unsociable behavior ("getting even") following across games.
- No respondent thus far has focused on a positive use-case for having player names visible.
- It is a trivial change to implement.
- Behavior have intervened in this space before to protect the privacy of Killers who were, by your logic, too lazy to change their profile privacy settings and should have done so. (As you so helpfully pointed out)
-
(Delete)
-
@YaiPa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1192471#Comment_1192471
That whataboutism could have made Vladimir Putin blush.
quote from: that guy below my first comment.
No, no. I think we're now at Stalin levels of whataboutism right now.
-
@OniWantsYourMacaroni said:
Please don't turn this Thread in a "Nerf Moris" Discussion.I simply want to talk about how keys can be made more fair but still useful.
My first change to keys would be a change to how the hatch spawns.
Currently the hatch spawns/is visible when 1 more gen is done than the number of survivors that are still alive in the trial
Example: 3 Survivors are left and need to complete 4 gens before the hatch spawns.
This system allowed situation where games ended faster then they should have.
My idea is,let the hatch only spawn when all gens are finished or only one survivor is left.
Furthermore:
-Green keys get 20 seconds of use and purple keys get 25 seconds.
-Every key has an aura reading ability of 32m (The same like the token Addons)
-Scratched Perl Rarity changed from yellow to brown
-Scratched Perl increases the aura reading ability by 4m,Eroded Token by 8m and Gold Token by 12m.(Those Addons can also increase the aura reading range of the Blood Amber Addon)
With these changes the key can still serve as a strong item with it's aura reading ability it will help you to locate your teammates (or the killer with the Blood Amber Addon) to plan your next steps more easily and also enables you to escape through the hatch after the killer managed to close it without ending games faster then they should have.
What are your thoughts?
It's a false dichotomy to suggest that Mori has no relation to Keys and that you can discuss one without discussing the other; They are essentially opposite sides of the same coin. Moris persistently allow situations where games end faster then they should have, to use your own words justifying this thread. Being completely realistic: Politics is the art of the possible and no Killer-main will take a Mori nerf without a Key nerf, and visa versa. Hence we really need to be discussing both else any proposal will easilly be shot down
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing your restriction for "Last surv or all gens complete" applied to both Mori and Keys.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1192421#Comment_1192421
Have you played death slinger ?
If you're suggesting that it's incumbent on me to explain to the OP how to best Deathslinger, it isn't; I wasn't the individual who essentially made an unhelpful slant against the OP's skills. That was you, you're more than welcome to make your own suggestions.
-
Interesting suggestion; I know Deathslinger isn't that effective at high rank, so I'd be concerned about making too many changes to him for that reason. Some people have suggested that his terror radius might need adjusting, as low-rank players tend to need a bit more of a head start in order to escape him. Though honestly, I don't have any solutions.
@immortalls96 said:
If death slinger is owning you that hard then I'm sorry to say your issue isnt his quick scoping..
If you're going to comment on the OP's skills, then It might be more constructive to provide genuine suggestions on what you think they need to be working on, just saying.
@YaiPa said:
"I've played plenty that this mechanic is actually considered cheating... Use of an external program to enhance/alter gameplay"
like voice comms SWF?
That whataboutism could have made Vladimir Putin blush.
-
@ZoneDymo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1192367#Comment_1192367
yeah because thats what we want, you just ending it and not helping the team by being a constant point of interest for the killer while you are still on that hook....I mean you get struggle points anyway.
It would be fine for solo games, and good at bringing SWF and Solo together.
TBH: Struggle is one of those things that I'd love to see removed from the game and replaced with something that keeps hooked survivors busy, in a way that doesn't present a means to throw the game whilst escaping a disconnect penalty.
-
@Mistikus said:
it would be nerf for solo players , they wouldn't be able to see if anny survivors is going to save them
Correct. Solo players rely on the ability to look around for decision making on whether or not to attempt to unhook themselves. The fact that Kindred allows the hooked survivor to see the other survivors is testament to the fact that people do look around for this reason. Hence, removing the ability to look around constitutes a nerf for those solo players who need to be able to quickly asses whether or not to attempt an unhook.
@Bellysmacker said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1192268#Comment_1192268
It wouldn't be a nerf to solo. The player would still be able to see the yellow auras of their teammates there fore would know some one is coming to save them unless they were hit by hex third seal or some aura blocker. Plus it could have a time limit.
The point is to give a little time for killer to leave hook without their direction being given away by comms.
Kindred usually gives the Killer's walking direction away, that and knowledge of the Killer's perks (BBQ / Nurse's) helps players understand which way the Killer is likely to go... I don't think voice comms plays as big a part as you might think.
But I do know the yellow auras are only useful if you can see them. If you're forced into first person or otherwise not able to look around, you won't see people coming to rescue you from behind.
-
This seems like a good change to make, it would be good to see it implemented. I suspect the resistence to this change actually comes from career killers who want to take advantage of the information that can be gained from players with minimal privacy controls on Steam... Which doesn't make for a convincing justification against the change.
@Raptorrotas said:
Stream sniping is not the dev's problem nor will they start banning snipers.
This is a blatant straw-man argument; No one suggested that stream snipers be banned, so your attempt at derailing the thread is not helpful nor appreciated.
@DeadGavin said:
Instead of having the devs code a bunch of things for you how about you use the tools that steam gives you to prevent this. (Change your name and private your profile)
The problem is more fundamental than just stream sniping. Particularly at high ranks, knowing who you are playing against can easily be abused to gain an added advantage just from prior exposure to the player. There is no legitimate game-play reason that this should be allowed in the pre-game lobby.
Suggesting that every player waste time between games changing names, clearing aliases etc is ridiculous - Steam is a social platform and friends should be able to find us in their friends lists without us being forced to make it difficult for them by changing names every 10 minutes.
Finally, those suggesting that this is anything more than a trivial change for the developers to implement, that they'd need to "code a bunch of things" as opposed to just commenting code out, does come across as someone speaking from a benighted position - You clearly have no programming experience and it would be best if you refrained from expressing flawed assessments on the effort required.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1185085#Comment_1185085
Then make use of the "clear previous aliases" function
Again, changing names and clearing aliases may be acceptable if the only game you play is Dead by Daylight and you have no intention of talking to people on Steam between rounds; If you do either of these things, or value your right to a player name, then this simply isn't an acceptable solution.
@[Deleted User] said:
A little of history
Initially in DBD, in the lobby, survivor and killers could acces their oponent's profile, devs changed it mainly because survivors abuse this:
they oftern entered the killer's profile of the and reviewing their achievements could correlate against what killer they would go: full Trapper achivements? everybody equip toolboxes, Nurse? plain lobby dodging! Wraith? everybody equip fleshlights(as a Wrait main, it happened to me countless times when the matchmaking whas region divided: as soon as they saw my name they equiped at least 2! and guess what happened when the devs deactivated the option to acces to the killer's profiler? Magically the survivors stopped to equip fleshlights the minute they entered my lobby! how mysterious isn't it?)
other instance the survivors abused the acces to killers'profiles it was stream snipning: one survivor would access to the stream(sometimes the first to die, and sometimes one who would throw the game to help their swf team) of the killer and tell the rest of their buddies, where he was, where he put traps and what perks he was using( being this last instance the reason why now you can't se the killer's build till every survivor is dead: initially survivors could, but they abused it like informing their team the killer was using NOED for example! and the devs put a countermeasure!)
The devs at that time put up a ban for those who stream sniped
later them recognize that it wasn't up to tme to regulate every single player in DBD if they decide to put in they profiles an direct acces to they streaming channel and erased the ban for stream sniping.
You asked before wy killers can view survivors names an survivors can't? now you know why! survivors abused their privieges!
Now let me tell you something: you put yourself on this situation
you use twitch in your steam's name and/or a direct access to your stream channel because you wanted to gain more public isn't it?
Nobody forced you to do so isn't it?
Then you are the sole responsible if you get a stream sniper since yourself put up in your own profile the very access to your stream channel, so is up to you to use countermeasures to avoid to be streamsniped! not the devs responsabilty nor you stream channel provider!
so instead of asking to the devs to cater your own created problematic, take yourself the necesary steps to avoid stream sniping, namely delay your stream, make your profile private, eliminate direct access or references to your channel and/or promote it in others mediums, etc!
Don't want to go by all the hassle? Why dev must go for even more hassle to resolve your personal problems?
I'm not a streamer but I change my steam's nickname in a (at least) month basis, my steam´s profile is private! and don´t accept friendship invitation that pop as soon as a survivor is killed, becasuse the countless threats recieved from utterly salty survivors! (I recieved enough invitations to groups with names like: "L2P No skill trash baby killer" or "######### pile of **** unrespectful 4% killer" to wknow better than putting up in my profile information about myself)
Whilst I respect that you are not a streamer there are people who do and they should feel comfortable advertising their stream to their Steam friends without having killers stream sniping. The most prominent way of doing this is the Steam Playername. This is a well-accepted standard.
To propose that players should run through a laundry list of checks and changes to how their Steam profile works just to play a single game reverses the onus of responsibility for providing a well-designed product from the Developer to the Consumers and I couldn't disagree more with that.
Now the change here would likely take all of 5 minutes to implement. I don't believe it is a tall ask for Behavior to save every player in the OP's situation the trouble of reconfiguration their Steam Profile settings, and then changing their name and clearing their aliases every round.
Finally, you completely torpedoed your own argument by referencing the fact that Behavior have already intervened in this space to prevent Survivors seeing the Killer's player name due to it being abused. (Achievement/stats checking) - Killers could have easily hid their achievements to stop this, but they didn't and nor was there any expectation that they should, so what's good for Killers is good for everyone else
-
Have to be honest, Survive with Friends is part of the game and there are many people who only play the game to play with friends... I don't think an opt-out mechanism is viable whilst ensuring everyone gets a game in a reasonable timespan. Nor do I think the idea of allowing people to opt out of 'more difficult' games is a good one; Today we're talking about allowing players to opt out of SWF, tomorrow it will be Moris, then Keys, NoED after that and of course Hatch. Then it will be opting out out specific Killers; I mean, name a survivor who wouldn't like to opt out of Spirit killers given their disproportionately high W/L ratio.
What I'd love to see is some actual statistics from Behavior as to average win/loss ratios depending number of friends in the party - We need hard figures to have this discussion, without finger in the air guesstimates.
Regarding disabling ranking on SWF: [Whataboutism warning] One could argue that Survivor's shouldn't be deranked for Mori's and similar. So I'd want to see both delivered hand in hand if that were to be done.
But I would advise caution: SWF games contribute to the statistics that Behaviour use when making balancing decisions to achieve the desired survival percentile. If the concerns expressed here are correct and you remove SWF from the mainstream pool of games, nerf the SWF effect or remove SWF completely then I would expect the overall survival percentile to drop below where it currently is. This would likely cause Behaviour to provide a near universal surviror buff to all non SWF games to bring the survival percentile back up.
Hence, whilst I understand some killers are frothing at the mouths for an SWF nerf, I can only advise that you be careful what you wish for; You could be drinking from a poisoned chalice.
-
@Thatbrownmonster said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1182513#Comment_1182513
Thanks for the celever and thoughtful counter argument
I'll take it with much conssideration, thank you survivor main
We need to avoid resorting to ad hominem attacks when dealing with other people; Address what people are trying to say without resorting to saying or implying things like, “You’re a survivor main, your opinion is invalid.”
Virtue-signalling aside, it would appear that Behaviour have intended for Decisive Strike to be used in unsafe situation where the killer is camping, especially at critical moments such as when the exit gates are powered. This is evidenced by the fact that there are very similar perks (Borrowed Time anyone?) that operate to similar effect.
Now, I don't see how you could nerf Decisive Strike on the grounds that 'it allows survivors to escape' without nerfing Borrowed Time also, but it seems like the OP's concern is the negative pip one suffers as a killer from a successful survivor DS. To that end, I agree it's not ideal, as the killer has no control over that situation to deserve such a penalty.
However, on balance, it is not the rescued survivor's fault if they are point-farmed with an unsafe rescue as the OP has described; So why penalise the survivor who got unhooked by limiting their options to try and survive?
Perhaps the original concern requires a simple solution: If the negative pip points for killers due to DS sucks; Let's just exempt the DS scenario from the 'losing a survivor' pip contribution. No harm, no foul.
I understand it might not be the nerf that many killers would like, but it's probably a change that everyone can get behind and is therefore likely to be implemented.
-
(Deleted)