JustCats
JustCats
About
- Username
- JustCats
- Joined
- Visits
- 236
- Last Active
Comments
-
@ALostPuppy said:
How about we don't remove freedom of choice from survivors just because they want to play with their friends? The sweaty SWF groups aren't even much of a problem, you rarely see them. It's not like you're expected to win against them, just move on from it.
Also you definitely are salty. The only thing that would compel you to make a post like this is you recently played a match where you either were against a sweat squad or you simply got stomped by 4 good survivors.
Because they're more than likely unilaterally giving themselves (outside of the game with a 3rd party app, mind you) the biggest perk advantage in the game with comms? The roadblock of limited information is the primary source of difficulty for a survivor team, and making the "free choice" of using comms neuters that. It's not about whether they're sweaty or not, it's about them just being able to press the easy button if they want to and it's just up to the other team to suck it if they do.
If I run a speed or a wall hack with a killer I'd just get banned. Why is limiting a player using a 3rd party app to gain an unfair advantage "removing freedom of choice?"
A well coordinated group of survivors will destroy a killer pretty much no matter what, perks or not. And that's how it should be, as it's very hard for survivors playing fair to coordinate well together - that's what perks help with. Comms makes it instantly very easy to be better coordinated. Why also reward them with the mechanics the game provides to solo queue to help coordinate with strangers you can't talk to?
-
@Luxoshamy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1404274#Comment_1404274
Killers can end the game by killing all survivors, it's not all about the gens. But yeah in most part i undestand where is coming from. Survivors are really strong and when they do coordinate, it becomes an imposible task for the killer. We all do what we can to win, we don't want to lose rank, but thats kind of frustrating. It's all about the rank and how stressful can be when you are alone. There's thinks the devs can do to stop this SWF, like forcing to be a 3 people queue. This will allow a weak link to happen like you are suggesting. But you can't stop people from playing together.
It is true that if we put a trial where no perks are allowed, survivors will win fairly easy. That's why perks for killers are so important. I could suggest that some of them should be passives by default on the trial. I don't think is a bad idea because there's a lack of builds and perks variety and that maybe can help to innovate a little more for killers and for survivors as well.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1404219#Comment_1404219
We have different point of view, that's why we are not agreeing. It's cocky to say what you just said. This is a DISCUSSIONS forum, why are we suppose to do? I'm giving my thoughs on every comment to undestand the situation. Not need to be greedy saying thinks like that.
I am gathering that English is not a native tongue so I admit I am having some trouble figuring out what you are saying here.
Yes, killers can end the game by killing all the survivors. What I am saying is that if you have lost the pressure of gen repair and the killer is dictating the pace of the game by killing survivors, you have likely already lost and/or are looking for the hatch. I am saying that survivors are only strong when they are able to work together, and that is the challenge of playing survivor. All comms are is a shortcut to this, whether it's two people in a party or four. You can still have a weak link in a SWF and SWF are not inherently unbeatable. Even teams on comms are not inherently unbeatable as it is up to them to utilize the tool well.
A perkless game would go about the same. It is still up to the survivors to play well together. If they do, they would generally win. If they do not, they give the killer the opportunity to win and it becomes up to the killer. This is not necessarily bad design. Comms, however are a 3rd party app that upend that balance and make it much easier for the survivors to play well together, much like a 3rd party hack would make it much easier for a killer to play well individually. You cannot fix this by buffing or nerfing survivors or killers as a group, as not every survivor team is going to be on comms; you can only fix this by nerfing survivors in a party.
-
@LowSpecGamersMatter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1404040#Comment_1404040
Exactly, and that at least punishes the killer if he stays on the slug or avoids tunneling by the killer leaving. But 30 seconds is not enough time to punish a killer for tunneling. especially when the timer is already going down when unhooked, because most killer start the chase around 10 seconds after the unhook happened (unless facecamping ofc) so standing on the slug for 20 seconds doesnt hurt enough
If you're still around the hook 10 seconds after the unhook, that's not a tunnel. If you're fully healed by the time the killer starts a new chase, that's not a tunnel.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1404329#Comment_1404329
But I guess that's my point; this game, from my understanding, would have been an easy low effort win because those survivors played like dum dums.
Two survivors threw themselves onto the OPs blade and (should have) been easily punished for it. Instead, the OP took his ball and went home because the easy win wasn't easy enough because of perks the two dum dums had (one perk, DS, that could have been wiped from the board if they ate the DS and just went back after them. People act like DS stops the killers from being able to just keep pursuing their target for some reason).
Yes, being a killer is hard. Hell, I'd go so far as to say if a killer and four survivors were completely evenly skilled, survivors have the edge. But to pretend that survivors can make these mistakes and not get punished for it by the killer is silly. This should have been a pretty easy win BECAUSE the survivors played dumb.
Oh it's definitely an easier win than one where survivors play smart. Yes, two survivors braindead threw themselves at him multiple times. All I'm saying is that it's frustrating that after that exchange, four survivors are still alive through no extra effort or skill on the survivors' part and they ate up enough time for a bunch of gens to get done. He's still in a good spot to do well, but I understand the frustration. I don't think it's ever cool to DC - even when I'm in a de-pip phase I at least put in an effort to chase people around for the fun of it - but I get why it felt obnoxious and defeating enough to just not want to deal with it.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
So 2 gens popped and you had the opportunity to punish bad plays by making them piss away DS that early but instead quit the match because they gifted you easy hooks?
Or if you didn't want to eat the DS, you could have slugged them and made them waste a bunch of time getting them back up.
Like, am I misunderstanding what went down here because it sounds like you absolutely could have and should have punished survivors doing bad plays but decided to quit instead...
Definitely still winnable but I think the point remains that it's just a frustrating mess of survivor misplays that should have put him into a guaranteed win position instead of him having to eat most of the consequences of their mistakes. BT and DS encourage that kind of eye-rolling behavior and obviously don't do anything to stem the tide of tunneling/camping (evidenced by all the complaints about constant tunneling/camping).
They just enable survivors to play like idiots while still requiring max effort from the killer.
-
Why not just let killers rebuild their totems after survivors dismantle them?
-
@Luxoshamy said:
This is a statement i've been hearing a lot. Survivor have been nerfed multiple times (maps included), and usually killers complains of DS, SWF, BT, BL, and all kind of initials. For me survivors now are on a rough place. Killers have a lot of perks that are game changing, don't mean those are OP, but they change so much the pacing of the trial. Instead survivors have no counter play at all, a lot of perks can counter killer but you are always flipping a coin if those are going to work. Killers are always on the offensive side, so they can go whatever they want. Survivors need to choose perks that can work early, mid and end game. Or cover a lot of tasks.
Survivors task are simple: Do gens, help teammates, waste killers time. Always will be a survivor that knows how to juke, mindgame, and waste killer's time, that's why they are higher rank. Like always will be a killer that knows how to pressure the map. But as some killers just complain about how DS is annoying, or that survivor gen rush every single time. This things are entirely faults of the killer. Like i've said before, killers control the pace of the trial, they can counter a lot of the survivors perks and strategies. If you get DS is like "ok, ill chase you again" or maybe you should wait and sludge or just bait him by picking him up and down.
Survivors would never control the pace of the trials, and if they do, is because killers are let them do it.
Now SWF is a weird place. For starter i'll like to say that this game let's you invite people. So is not a crime to play together, that would be a better experience either you win or lose. The problem is that this shows how powerful survivors can really be if they are coordinated. But that's something the killer should expect ALWAYS. A coordinated team. No need to be mad against players who are enjoyning the game with friends or introducing new ones to the community. If you have a feeling is a SWF, then go and tryhard a little.
Something i'll like to mention also is camping. After all what i've been trying to explain about how killers control the pace, makes survivors adjust to his strategies and how game changing some perks are. I don't see the point on camping, and take this as a good thing. It is a strategy? Or is playing cheap? Face camping is a strategy also? You are risking gens just to let one survivor die, and i think every time i've tried to safe someone from camping was just for the good of that guy playing. No one likes to be targeted and been in a chase at the minute he left the hook. That's why a lot of players go for borrowed time, you never know if the next killer will be face camping someone just because he was looping right, or wasting your time when the other survivors did objectives. That's on you, not on him. It will be a stop for camping? Don't think so, is something that works because other survivors want to do what they have to, is a team after all.
Camping should be punished. I'm not talking about reports, it's stupid to report someone for taking advantage of that. But maybe by losing BP. When i want to get some easy BP i'll just queue killer do a challenge, make an offering and i'm good to go, 25k secure. Survivors getting camped get like 8k BP because someone was standing right next to him. I've played friendly killer and got more points than that. Make punishment for anti-fun actions. Add that to the emblems. If the killer stays on certain range from the hooked survivor make him lost BP, it's just for a good cause. Newer players don't need to suffer this anti fun mechanics, no one actually. And also, if you don't camp, and just go for every single survivor, you get more BP. Really don't know why there's people who still doing those things.
Survivors already lost a lot of points by don't doing certain tasks and sometimes there's no need for him to do it but the game will take away almost 6k for that. So i think it will be fair.
Tl;DR: Killers can control the pace and have more advantages over survivors. People just don't use them right. Camping should be at a cost of BP so they don't get rewarded by spoiling the fun to someone or whatever excuse you have.
Survivors quite explicitly control the pace of the game as the game ends when the generators are repaired. The killer cannot repair gens. If you are in a match where the killer is controlling the pace of the game then the killer has likely already won.
The truth is that a coordinated group of survivors will make mincemeat out of any killer - as it should be. That's the primary challenge for survivors - not in looping, not in hiding, not in stacking second-chances. It's working together despite the challenge of limited information. That's why solo queue survivor-ing is hard. It's also why SWFing with comms is easy, as you're just using a 3rd party app to remove what makes the game difficult - now information is not limited at all and coordination is trivial. If you use it to gain an advantage in the game, you get a tremendous advantage in the game. It's like if speed hacks were generally acceptable for killers to use for some reason.
And that's the problem and why you hear the statement so much. Survivors as a team are OP, and they should be. But, it should require all four survivors playing well for any of them to be OP. Survivors are the equivalent of Nurse - if you get it right, you should stomp. For the vast majority of games, however, there's at least one weak link, and that weak link should drag everybody down so that no survivors are OP.
Except, of course, we are cavalier about comms. So now survivor groups are either trying to play Nurse legit, or trying to play Leatherface with a speed hack. And the game, predictably, becomes impossible to balance. You want to give solo-queue survivors a leg up so that the weak link isn't so punishing? Congrats now your comm groups are invincible. Do something to survivors with the knowledge that they might be on comms? Congrats now solo queue survivors are snacks.
The problem is that they don't limit or throttle only the survivors in parties in any way. Of course, then you have a problem with lobby dodging survivors who try and team up anyway, but I think you could just increase or get creative with the lobby dodge penalty to discourage this.
-
I think the problem with DS isn't with the conditions that cause the trigger so much as that it's a passive ability that requires next to no effort from the survivor for a major momentum shifting benefit. There's zero counterplay except to slug and wait - which, if someone is legit tunneling in a toxic way, they don't really mind doing. Otherwise DS, and BT, really, are just get-out-of-jail-free cards that encourage poor play from survivors as it just punishes killers for survivor mistakes.
I've never intentionally tunneled, for example, but I get accused of it constantly by survivors who don't understand that they're farming their teammates. I want to just capitalize on the unsafe hook, re-hook, and be on my way, but I can't without risking losing hook pressure and delaying gen patrol. My only options (since of course, there's no way to know if someone is running DS) are to slug and stand around and wait for DS cooldown, or abandon the slug and lose a hook state and at least salvage some heal time. In both cases, I pay the price for a survivor mistake. If it's an endgame camp, the survivor often just escapes for free.
I'd just change it to be DH on the ground. Make it a timing outplay for survivors where, if they aren't exhausted, they can trigger to roll over and stab the killer just as he goes to pick them up for a brief stun on the killer and going back to an injured state. I never feel bad when a survivor escapes because of a nifty DH - I got outplayed. That's fun. A near automatic take-backsie when I've already done what I need to do to earn the hook - that's not fun. When the opposing team makes a big mistake that you recognize and capitalize on but ends up with you losing ground instead with no effort from the opponent - that's even less fun.
Unless you want to give me a killer perk that automatically warps a survivor to my shoulder if they duck or click their flashlight too many times in quick succession I don't see how current DS is a defensible mechanic.
-
@coppersly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1402218#Comment_1402218
I have suggested this multiple times but the devs don't seem to want gens to be too distracting.
The next best idea I can come up with is to match gen speeds with killer hooks. Less hooks later in the game means gens are terribly slow, so the killer can at least accomplish some hooks in the landslide matches. Same in reverse, lot of hooks but no gens done means speeds will be faster.
I think you can find a line between too distracting and braindead quicktime.
I don't know about throttling to artificially induce an even match, that never feels good (thinking about those Mario Kart races where you obliterate everyone and suddenly all the cpu karts are faster).
Another idea is to spawn as many chests as there are gens, and clearly label the gens. Each chest is accessible to each survivor once, and each one, instead of giving items, returns a random part for a random generator for each survivor that accesses it. Those parts unlock those specific gens for that individual survivor to repair. Get a part for gen 3, then find gen 3 to repair, etc.
-
@coppersly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1401378#Comment_1401378
You and OP make good points.
Generators do seem to always be at the center of the games problems.
I think they just need a more involved mini-game that gets progressively harder as gens are completed - kind of like the "hacking" minigames in Fallout, so repairing a gen becomes more of an activity than a passive waiting game. The point of gen repair isn't just to make survivors sit still at a likely ambush spot, it's supposed to divide their attention.
-
@BaroneMaximus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1401684#Comment_1401684
Agree with all, always thought the same about the cooperation, and nothing else. That's the real "abuse" they have in this case. It's not about being too good for killers, but it's being able to cooperate perfectly with other survivors that make it unbalanced.. I played a lot of games with solo survivors who were gods mate and we didnt need to talk at all, they were good and i just followed and we all escaped or max 1 were sacrificed "for the cause" so yeah... as you say it's very difficult to fix this and i don't know if they will ever put an hand on it
Just limit the sources of information that the game gives them since they're using a 3rd party app to give them extra. 2 person SWF? 3 perks each. 3 person? 2 perks. Running a four man? One perk per survivor. Since comms essentially gives them 2-3 recon perks for free I feel like that's fair. In fact they should be grateful since if the killer uses a 3rd party app for an advantage they just get straight banned.
-
The issue isn't that voice comms make a swf superpowered it's that it gives them the option of removing the primary source of difficulty in the game for survivors - working together as a team with limited information. You don't need to be in a SWF to be good at this, of course, but voice comms are basically an easy button for survivors if they press it.
A SWF can be any of the above options, it's entirely up to them. Which, of course, is the problem as the killer is pretty much entirely at their mercy for a fair game.
-
I think it would be interesting if the killer could take the time to reassemble the totem after a significant cooldown.
-
I think you should have to time it like DH. Just before the killer bends down to pick you up you roll over and stabby with whatever. This gives the killer an opportunity to dodge the hit and requires some sort of conscious effort from the survivor.
The problem with perks like DS and BT is that there's next to no effort from the survivor for a virtually guaranteed outplay in a lot more situations than legitimate tunneling or camping, with zero counterplay except playing around cooldowns. It's like if killers could run a perk that passively magically hooked a survivor for them if the survivor teabagged in their field of view. Yeah, might punish some toxic idiots but it'd also make using the duck button a pain in the butt.
-
@Calchexxiss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1401723#Comment_1401723
You can't exploit Thrilling Tremors or Blood Echo either for the same reason, you need to down/hook. You can't exploit Trails of Torment because it's tied to kicking generators, which takes time so you can't do it in a chase, and you can't damaged unworked or already damaged generators. You can't exploit I'm All Ears because it relies entirely on the actions of the Survivor, not on anything you do.
Think before you speak, mate.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1401777#Comment_1401777
I can't say I agree with you. Most Killer add-on's are incredibly generic to the Killer. Most add-ons just change the charge time of powers or add effects to special attack hits. Only the rarest add-ons do anything special. Take Pyramid Head for example. Every single one of his Brown, Yellow, and Green add-ons do exactly the same thing with rising levels of power. Only the Purple and Iri add-ons alter his power at all. That's largely true across all Killers with a few notable exceptions like the Doctor.
That aside, you're missing the main point of my argument. By and large, these perks aren't used at all with the exception of Thrilling. Meaning they're badly designed. Anything that's put into a game and is never used is, by definition, badly designed.
I see what you're saying but you're missing my point. Add-ons aren't generic to the killer, they're specific to the killer. A chewed pen increasing the rate of GhostFace power recovery does nothing for any killer except GhostFace. Thrilling Tremors, however, is generic to all killers.
What does this mean? It means that every perk has to be balanced for every killer, and then also balanced within each individual killer add-on ecosystem. So a perk that's reasonable for a somewhat stealthy killer might be way out of bounds if another killer can use an add-on to get super stealthy. So the perk gets an outrageous cooldown or gets put on a totem to balance for that - making it useless for any other killer (including the one it was designed for originally) that doesn't have that add-on.
Perks should be designed towards killer archetypes instead, with an understanding that any killer could use a standard item to make themselves faster/better/stronger in baseline mechanical ways. So a Perk designed for GhostFace might work pretty well with Myers, for example, but not with Leatherface. But some Leatherface perks might work pretty well with Myers and not with GhostFace, as Myers is closer to Leatherface in archetype than GhostFace. That's how you create build diversity with a roster of different characters.
Instead we have a core group of meta perks for all killers to boost their baseline mechanics, who each have their own specific items that also have clear bests, leading to a stale meta with a million unused perks and items - and every killer essentially becomes the same killer with a little tweak depending on the power.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1401755#Comment_1401755
Noed and Adrenaline aren't even close to analogies. Noed is a catch up perk. Adrenaline is a reward for finishing your objective.
Except you haven't finished your objective (escaping), you're just closer to the end game. Adrenaline is a boost if you are currently suffering and may not be able to complete it. A catch-up.
NOED is the same - haven't finished your objective (kill all survivors), but it's getting to the end game and the killer is currently suffering (not all survivors are dead).
Now, Adrenaline is based on good progress (completing gens) rather than bad (not everybody's dead) and so there's no real counter, which seems fair. But they are both definitely catch-up mechanics.
-
The problem with killer perks is really killer add-ons. Add ons serve the purpose of perks - enhancing your killer's abilities - making perks too hard to balance across a roster with very diverse abilities. That's why you get these weirdly long cooldowns and the clumsy totem mechanic. When killer abilities aren't even consistent within the context of the killer it's very hard to determine when and where a perk is OP. Right now it's backwards, where a killer's perks are picked for their general utility and the items are specific - so the most useful general utility perks become the default meta.
Add ons should be relatively generic consumables the same way they are for survivors. A stim for increased movespeed or a thing to bust pallets quickly or whatever. At that point you'd be able to examine perks with a more even balance foundation.
-
Number one, recognize that if a survivor goes down early that builds a lot of momentum for the killer whether he camps or not. Don't get downed early. If a teammate goes down early, tell yourself that the killer is currently "winning" the game and you will have to adjust what you're doing in response until you get the upper hand back.
Number two, don't ignore bones.
Number three, maybe don't cluster at the exit gate. NOED punishes over-altruism and inattention at the end of the game. That is all it does.
Number four, if the killer is camping, recognize that the worst thing that can happen is for him to finish his sacrifice and immediately catch and hook someone else. Sometimes you have to adjust your playstyle in the same way that a killer has to react to what survivors do. Go immersive, don't get caught out. Know where he is on the map, and be on the other side. Abandon gens early if you need to - if you're doing totems along the way and he's camping (meaning he's not triggering Pop often), your progress is going to outpace his gen slowdown.
And Otz regularly 4ks whatever he does. You can't prove that a strategy is OP by pointing to the best and saying that it works for them when they do it. Yeah man - everything he does makes it very hard on survivors. Otz is OP, not the perk/strategy.
NOED is successful, camping killer or not, when survivors play into it.
-
It's very hard to say for sure whether you're facing a swf or not, and generally close to impossible in the lobby. That being said, over time you develop a feel for when you're facing a team with a much higher than usual level of coordination.
Every down has a flashlight fight? There's one survivor who is shadowing you all game baiting chases while the other three play like they know where you are all the time and feel near impossible to find? Gens just absolutely vanish? Healthy survivors constantly appearing at the right time in a chase to bodyblock? Get looped past a locker for a Head-On strike more than once?
Now, all of these things are possible without swf, and aren't guaranteed to happen with swf. The truth is that even though they say the game is balanced around solo queue, the game is very much stacked against the killer IF the survivors work together, swf or not. As it probably should be - the real challenge for survivors isn't in looping or hitting skill checks on generators, it's in working together as a team with limited information. SWF just makes that so, so much easier.
This is also why it's hard to "fix" the issue of SWF, because most changes to SWF situations would really hurt groups of just plain good solo survivors who are able to meet that challenge of coordination despite limited information.
My suggestion has always been to just limit perk slots as you add party members, so that you don't get the information benefit of comms/regular playing partners plus the information benefit of what a full suite of perks provides. I don't personally believe that "punishes" SWF in a real significant way except to limit the information benefit gained by using a 3rd party app. We don't worry about "punishing" people who use wall hacks, and what is sharing information through comms but a pseudo wall-hack?
-
Killers don't really have any way to be toxic during the game. I definitely don't count camping/tunneling as neither of those things are abuses of a game mechanic and both can be responded to or played around. I mean I guess GF and Pig can kinda teabag and there's the hitting a hooked survivor thing which I guess is kind of BM.
Survivors get all kinds of tools to bully though, and it's extremely rare to play a match where no survivors are toxic - at least once you hit the point where it's reliably four red-rank survivors.
I suspect it's mainly an opportunity thing, and since survivors get to taunt the killer in-game it just conditions them to taunt in post-game too. Doesn't help that the game is designed in such a way that it just feels bad when you lose, generally.
-
Bill Overbeck's Nightmare: 4v1 with all players starting as survivors, one must be Bill. Game rules as normal except
- One player starts with a zombie bite. There is no visual indicator of this for anyone.
- Generators require cooperation to progress. With four survivors, 3 must be on a gen to repair. With 3, two must be on a gen. With two, both survivors must be repairing the same generator.
- After 30 seconds the bitten player is transformed immediately into a zombie. This killer moves at 105% and has no terror radius or red stain. They have no perks, but can hear each survivor's heartbeat (they have the TR instead). Entirely m1, except if the lunge attack is held down, this goes into a grab in which the killer and survivor perform simultaneous and increasingly difficult identical skill checks. If the killer fails before the survivor, the survivor escapes and the killer is stunned for 4 seconds. If the survivor fails, they are bitten. 30 seconds later they also turn into a zombie killer with the same abilities.
- Survivors can be downed and sacrificed as normal. Escape conditions are the same.
- KWF, SWF, and solo queue
-
We Are Legion: 4v1 but all players start looking like survivors with baseball bats. Game rules as normal except:
- Survivors can attack and down each other, but are permanently broken and cannot heal. All survivors including the disguised Legion can repair generators and perform all other survivor functions.
- A survivor who downs a survivor who is not the disguised Legion loses one hook state. The player will not know. If this happens when the survivor is on death hook state, the Entity takes him as sacrifice.
- The bleed out timer is 60 seconds. Instead of dying, a person who has bled out spawns across the map as a random new survivor, at full health but carrying over their hook state counter.
- The Legion player mechanics: activating Feral Frenzy dons the Legion mask, heals one health state, and goes into 1st person. Feral Frenzy works as normal except duration is increased by 50% and misses/stuns/2nd hits do not cancel Feral Frenzy. A Feral Frenzy hit on a survivor injured before this instance of Feral Frenzy was activated downs them. Feral Frenzy pauses on picking up a hooked survivor.
- On hook or Feral Frenzy exhaustion, the Legion player is moved across the map and transforms into a random different survivor.
- Attacking Legion in Legion form as a survivor involves a short, cancel-able windup for a power hit. Legion has a counterattack ability with a 2 second cooldown in which he/she can interrupt the attack and stab. A successful attack will slow Legion to non-Feral Frenzy running speed. A second successful attack will down them.
- Legion cannot bleed out and die until all generators are complete. A Legion who bleeds out before then spawns across the map as a new survivor.
- Survivors must kill Legion in order to escape if more than one survivor remains. If there is only one true survivor remaining, they can open the exit gates to escape if all gens are repaired. There is no hatch.
- KWF and solo players only.
-
@MiktheSpik said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1397548#Comment_1397548
The reason i dont like playing is cause kuller mains NONSTOP cry about anything. I wad playing high purple ranks for a week or two post patch like some half year ago. And killers were literally like 3K'ing almost every game some games were 2k and still more were 4k but it was like 75 percent kill rate and killers... They were ACTUALLY still crying about keys. Like you know why people dont play the game? Cause tis game is one of the most cry baby infested games i have ever played in my DECADES worth of online gaming experience.
Well keys are just mass DCs... if you don't want to play then don't queue up. Even with an ebony mori you gotta chase people and hook em once then down them again (as stupid and unfair as they are).
Here's how keys work for the killer - "hmm I don't see any of the survivors, maybe - oop match ended you lost." Whether killers are OP or not an item that just instantly ends the game for no good reason and gives points and the win to the person who pushed the forfeit button is essentially the worst designed game mechanic imaginable, in any game in any context.
-
They just need to activate when you put them on (or you can't remove them until they activate) and she's probably mostly fine.
-
Well once the "matchmaking is fubar, whaddya gonna do" excuse is gone I'd imagine legitimate balance issues will become clearer. But yeah, if you're super super good you'll probably have to play against super super good survivors. If that's extra unpleasant, maybe they'll fix the game. Or maybe they'll introduce killer-specific matchmaking so you can just hop on a different killer.
-
I think it's more that nobody wants to play versus red-rank survivors. It's not every group, but it's close enough that when I get to rank 5 or 6 and start seeing them I can be virtually guaranteed that the match is going to be unpleasant, win or lose, with all the various toxic and unsportsmanlike behavior that . DbD is literally the only multiplayer game I've played where I start sandbagging and playing characters I know I'm not good at the better rank I get, just so I can de-rank into more pleasant environments.
I'm not so uber good at killer that playing in the 12-8 range means I 4k every time, i definitely don't, but it's definitely not exactly fair in those matches either. People are better sports though and everybody seems to enjoy themselves more, despite the fact that I win more than I probably should.
Dunno what the solution is except for an indefinite blacklist or more robust reporting and penalty system, but I'd just as soon not play at all than get cursed out by 14 year olds whether I win or lose, which is 9/10 (probably more like 19/20) games vs full red ranks.
-
@Demonl3y said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/167233/stop-complaining-about-genrush
Genrush exists. It means you priotize gens over everything.
But since its the survivors objective, no one should complain.
Killing survivors is the killers objective, but people still complain about camping, tunneling, NOED, and whatever else they find annoying. This is a video game. People complain about the things they don't like.
Just because gens are the objective doesn't mean that they have to be as quick and/or easy to repair. Nobody's blaming survivors for genrushing, or at least I don't (although I don't see how it's fun for anybody), but it's absolutely fair game to complain about.
-
@Splinterverse said:
Honestly, "gen rush" is BS. The only thing survivors have to do to escape is generators (followed by unhooks if needed). That's it. We don't have to do chests. We don't have to do totems. If you don't like it, blame BHVR instead of telling survivors they are "gen rushing."
People do blame BVHR. That doesn't mean it doesn't still suck when games end in 5 minutes.
-
@LetsPlayTogether said:
No. Take away the aura read and most killers would struggle to find any survivors at all.
How'd they find one to hook and activate BBQ in the first place then?
I don't even have BBQ unlocked on most of my killers and finding survivors is the least of my problems.
-
@Sadsnacks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1398374#Comment_1398374
Okay that makes sense I guess. I just chased this Kate all the way around lerys along the edge of the map for what felt like forever. I only stopped to break one pallet because I absolutely had to, it was the one that completely blocks the hallway, and the chase took forever to catch up to her. I checked perks afterward and all she had was sprint burst.
Don't forget to use geography. If she's running along the edge of the map, take the inside track. Make it so that she can't cut inside to the middle of the map without losing distance, and you'll end up catching her pretty quickly. Having someone at the map boundaries is usually your most advantageous scenario, as you can push them into having only one direction available.
If you start the chase already really far back (say if she used Sprint Burst right after that pallet drop), make a big read and cut way inside - it's ok if you lose sight of her a little bit. She'll either pop up right in front of you when you get back near the map boundary or you'll have lost her quickly and not wasted time on a protracted chase that would hurt more than it helped even if you did catch her.
-
I don't want to push you into buying any content, but my advice is usually to find an m1 killer that is not particularly power-dependent and reasonably small (in actual size) when first starting out. Reason being - every killer is going to have their quirks, but at the end of the day it just comes down to outperforming in a loop for the vast majority of the roster.
Somebody like Legion or Pig is going to teach you more about the fundamentals of being a good killer than anyone else, even if they are a bit underwhelming in abilities. You don't really want to be focused on a killer's abilities cause at a certain point every survivor will know exactly what to look for and how to play around it - and you'll be m1ing in loops anyway. So get someone fast and agile and run the tiles, really focusing on getting comfortable when a survivor starts running you around without needing to rely on an ability or item. That will make any killer's ability or item just a bonus later on down the road.
-
@Huff said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1398323#Comment_1398323
"Now IMO this is a poor move by the team because..." = "I don't want to play the role of a gay person" in your mind.
"maybe BHVR you can do this right but it has been done wrong many times before..." = "TLOU2 has a non-binary protagonist. The players hate it. The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that OP thinks the players hate it because of that representation" in your mind.
Are you starting to see the pattern here? If you don't, I don't know what to say to somebody like you.
I think it proves my point well enough.
That's why I asked for a quote. You can't find me one where he's saying what you're saying. All you can manage is to pull up a quote and give me what you think he's saying. You are the exact type of divisive person I was referring to earlier that we don't need in this kind of conversation. You are a prime example of what people talk about when they say "pushing an agenda." All you know how to do is water things down to the most extreme degree so you can try to apply your dogma to it. That's what ruins media. That's what's being complained about here.
If you can't recognize how utterly disingenuous you're being, then I have no further reason to reply to you. Get real.
Yo I somehow forgot to address the bit about me.. watering things down but also taking them to their most extreme at the same time somehow so I can apply my... dogma (?) to it and how I'm ruining media but honestly I do not have the tinfoil context to know how to respond to that. But just so you know I did read it and I do hear you. I just don't know what you're talking about.
-
@Huff said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1398323#Comment_1398323
"Now IMO this is a poor move by the team because..." = "I don't want to play the role of a gay person" in your mind.
"maybe BHVR you can do this right but it has been done wrong many times before..." = "TLOU2 has a non-binary protagonist. The players hate it. The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that OP thinks the players hate it because of that representation" in your mind.
Are you starting to see the pattern here? If you don't, I don't know what to say to somebody like you.
I think it proves my point well enough.
That's why I asked for a quote. You can't find me one where he's saying what you're saying. All you can manage is to pull up a quote and give me what you think he's saying. You are the exact type of divisive person I was referring to earlier that we don't need in this kind of conversation. You are a prime example of what people talk about when they say "pushing an agenda." All you know how to do is water things down to the most extreme degree so you can try to apply your dogma to it. That's what ruins media. That's what's being complained about here.
If you can't recognize how utterly disingenuous you're being, then I have no further reason to reply to you. Get real.
Yeah man, it's not rabid foam at the mouth explicit bigotry but it also doesn't appear to be a ######### mystery what he's saying. He could probably do with a little more effort to writing with clarity but if you took something significantly different from what he is saying I'd love to hear it.
If you don't mind can you please tell me what agenda I'm divisively pushing? Or what my dogma is? If it's that I'm generally very encouraging of attempts to increase an awareness of representation and diversity in media, OK, guilty as charged and I'm sad that's somehow divisive - but I don't think I'm the problem. If it's something else though I'd like to know, especially if it is actually nefarious. I've always wanted to be part of a conspiracy.
Also, right back at ya as far as being the exact wrong person to be involved in this kind of conversation. This kind of pedantic "but he didn't say exactly this or explicitly that" is tiresome and just serves to distract from the actual conversation we should be having. It's awfully clear what the guy meant to say. He doesn't want chick Ghostbusters. I've heard the same argument a million different times said a million different ways. Getting nit-picky and parsing sentences so we can cut the issue down so specifically that the conversation's not about anything meaningful anymore just turns it into an argument over style rather than substance. I don't care about the ######### trees, dude, look at the damn forest. And yes, I know he never mentioned Ghostbusters anywhere.
Read for comprehension my man, and try to apply a little bit of sophistication to your analysis. You write intelligently enough to be better than this kind of toddler-esque "I didn't touch your arm, I touched your shoulder" kind of argumentation.
-
No, and you're not. When you see references to a 110% or 115% killer it's a reference to their move speed relative to survivors. However, hitbox collision means that, to varying degrees, survivors can cut corners closer than killers. Since the game has boiled down to running in a circle around a pile of trash, that small difference can add up.
However, if you stay in a chase long enough, you'll engage a speedboost that will help you catch up. It's not a lot, but it is noticeable.
The key to catching survivors is less in outrunning them and more in anticipating where they are going to go so you can get there first (or in time). It's basically Duck, Duck, Goose. The person in charge of running in the circle gains a little bit of time each time they change direction since the other person loses time reacting. You want to be the one forcing the survivor to change direction.
-
@Huff said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1397000#Comment_1397000
Still waitin' on that quote. Otherwise I assume you're just trying to put words in the mouth of OP.
He says that there's other media that does it wrong, and lists those as examples. To assume what he means beyond that is nothing but your imagination, and unless you want to find me a quote where he's saying what you're telling me he's saying, you can just stop right there lmao
You need me to read the OP back to you? Okie dokie.
"I made the choice to check on some DBD news knowing that the event was close and I discovered a letter from the team discussing "equal representation" and "giving sexual orientation" to the characters. Now IMO this is a poor move by the team because of the RPG element that this game currently has... "
OK, so here we go. Introducing greater representation is a bad move because this game has some unspecified RPG elements. Which means he does not want the Role of a gay person when he Plays this Game.
"maybe BHVR you can do this right but it has been done wrong many times before, the latest example is "The Last of Us 2", the players hate this game. "
The players hate TLOU2. We have not discussed any issues like writing, gameplay, etc, etc. We have only discussed representation and diversity as a general concept to be a potential problem. TLOU2 has a non-binary protagonist. The players hate it. The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that OP thinks the players hate it because of that representation.
"Another example is "Batwoman" the tv series on CW. the batwoman tv series is an example of the saying "get woke, go broke", in just one season the show lost 1million viewers because of how hard they pushed the agenda."
How else does one read 'get woke, go broke' than to say if you prioritize representation, you're doomed to failure. Again, he is making the suggestion that the show failed because they pushed an unspecified agenda, which, considering nothing has been shared to be problematic except the general concept of representation, that the "agenda" is just that.
"I really don't want to see a game that I am trying to get back into become a "Batwoman" or "TLOU 2" and seeing that letter set off a red flare telling me not to play because of where this game could be going, neither batwoman or "TLOU2" show "equal representation" please don't be like them!"
Now, TLOU2 and Batwoman could not be any different in terms of critical and commercial success, style, and substance. The only real comparison or through note is the fact that they have non-binary protagonists. That's it. So don't be like them and have non-binary protagonists.
Nothing cherry picked, that's literally every sentence in order of the relevant section of the OP. I'm not putting words in his mouth, I'm taking them at face value. I'd ask you to provide a quote from the OP where he says something different, but that's everything he said.
-
@csandman1977 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1397613#Comment_1397613
Starting off. Don't presume to know what i am. Labeling people by opinion is not right. And often is completely wrong. Like when Joe Biden basically told people that if they voted for Trump, they weren't black. You have zero understanding of my thoughts on anything but this one post and my thoughts on DBD.
Next and these are in order of your points, Batwoman, and i will focus on this one due to its the most recent and aggregius example. Her character simply put was nothing more than her being lesbian. There was zero character development. The supporting cast was there to basically prop up Kate and tell her she had no flaws. Why? Because she was nothing more than a prop the writers used to idolize their beliefs. She wasn't 3 dimensional. She was lesbian girl power and nothing more. And no. I dont relate to a character when their is nothing to that character that is possible to relate to. For comparison lets look at Magna from walking dead. Shes lesbian. But her character while not focused on very much, shows growth, and history and yes shes lesbian but she is much more than just lesbian. Shes human. Not saying lesbians arent human. Dont take that out of context.
Movies. I dont watch many movies. But when i do I watch for the story. I skip all but the most mild of sex scenes. (Anything more than kissing i turn off) In my youth i was different of course. But the lesbian scenes always piqued my interest make of that what you will. Now when i watch a TV show, its for the story and the characters. I dont have to relate to a character to enjoy them. Raymond Reddington. One of the best characters on TV. Also going back to walking dead. Magna. Yumiko. Aaron. All gay. All good characters. Why? Because even though they are gay, they are fully realized characters. People are more than their sexuality. Take away those characters' sexuality and they are still whole people. Take away Kate kanes sexuality and she has nothing left. That is the difference.
Black panther. You are correct. I Didnt find it to be the best movie ever. My opinion. Others may disagree. What it wasn't was the first marvel movie starring a black character. Blade came before it. I would say in my opinion Blade is better. I enjoyed it more. Black Panther was more political. I watch movies for entertainment not politics. Dont get me wrong, I have nothing bad to say about it. My problem was with the hate that people received because they Didnt agree with the hype.
And while we are on the topic, marvel movies werent made for me. If they were, they never would have been made. Did i enjoy them? Sure. Mostly. Doctor Strange sucked. But the others were good. Some were really good. Why were they good? Because they dealt with entertainment. There goal was to entertain people and make money. And they did.
And lastly I will address the insults. People like me? What does that mean? Because I will tell you this right now. I dont give a rats ass what color someone is. What gender they are. What they choose to do with their bodies. None of that is how I choose to label people. Not how I choose who i like or not. I never insulted anyone. All i did was attempt to shed some light on a topic in an attempt to open discourse.
But you assume im a straight white male, screaming from the rafters of my privileged mansion. That I refuse to see anyone elses point of view. If you knew me you would know how wrong you are. Instead you see my opinion that doesnt match yours so im just a ciswhite male whos opinion is wrong because Im a bigot and a -phobe.
I assumed you were a straight white dude because your post is an exact example of the perspective that doesn't understand why representation is important even if the media portrayal isn't perfect, deep, and complex, or the context of historical over-representation of straight white dudes.
For that, I apologize. I have no idea if you are actually a straight white guy. But that's exactly the perspective you shared, whatever your background is. Please don't take that as an insult, it's not intended to be. Straight white guys are totally cool, and those who aren't straight white guys but share their perspective are too. We can just call it the "privilege perspective" and not put the background connotation on it. No insult is intended.
What I was trying to say is that it's still important to have media representation even if it's not perfect. So you didn't like Batwoman because you thought her character was boiled down to lesbian and that's it. Well, how ######### complicated does Batwoman have to be, she's a comic book character. You've got 100 different one-note portraits of Batman/Superman/Iron Man/Thor/Spiderman/etc upon etc and I don't see anyone crying about how "ugh, Batman, right - it's allll about his privileged hetero masculinity amirite?" Yet the moment a hero turns gay or a woman or black, that's the big knock - "fine he/she's gay/female/black. We get it already stop shoving it down our throats." Sometimes, they're going to do it badly and have to be able to fail in the same ways that cisgendered media is allowed to fail.
When I said "people like you," I was only referring to people who share your perspective, which is fairly common. People like you who don't understand (or disagree) that representation at a basic level is important have plenty of non-representative media to fall back on. People like you who don't understand why it is a big deal that Black Panther is black and why that makes it a "better" movie aren't suffering because of the effort at diversity or that praise because of it.
Do you see what I mean? It's not that you can't see other points of view or that you're a jerk - far from it and I'm sorry that's the impression I left you with. It's that you're assigning the problem with these things as a result of their representative diversity, not that they're bad for the same reasons straight white guy media can be bad. Batwoman isn't very good. But it's not bad because she's a lesbian it's bad because it's poorly written and doesn't give the character(s) enough depth. Just like literally any other bad superhero show/comic/movie.
-
@hammertime said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1398106#Comment_1398106
Thanks im trying to keep this game going for myself. I remember really liking it and want my friends to play it with me, it just seems like getting into it can be so frustrating.
It's cause it's legitimately a poorly designed game that requires the stars to align to provide a positive experience to all parties involved. The internet is a toxic place, of course, but DbD's higher than average share of it for a multiplayer game isn't some weird coincidence.
It's honestly up to you how much you want to put up with until you start getting games that make it feel worth it, but the m1 killer while you're still playing with people who are mostly also learning to loop themselves helped me considerably. It won't translate into immediate 4ks or anything but it'll lay a solid foundation so you won't feel like you have to camp or tunnel to catch anyone later on.
-
You'll get better and looping will just be annoying rather than insufferably frustrating. If I can make a suggestion, try focusing on an m1 killer like Legion or Pig when you're working your way out of the lower ranks. These guys will help you establish fundamentals that you can supplement later on with the killers who have neat powers. They also tend to be a little smaller so hitbox issues aren't as noticeable. Once you get a pretty good feel for when you can sneak that hit in on a pallet or window, go play Spirit or Hag and dump on all the survivors that only learned how to loop and are dead in the water if they can't.
Also - I don't know if you're a golfer or not, but this is pretty much the digital version. It's not a game you'll have fun with every match, it's a game that you'll have so much fun with in one match that you can look past the misery of the next 10. So keep in mind that the game turns its back on a number of design fundamentals and is pretty much built to frustrate you (mostly when you're playing killer, but survivor has its issues too). It'll just make a good game feel that much better.
-
Right, you trade the current danger of being unhooked where you are injured and the killer knows exactly where you are for the future danger of having increasingly less margin for error in your next encounter with the killer, but it's on fairer terms.
It also gets you in a position to get back to work on gens faster as a tradeoff for being less safe in general.
I'm not sure it necessarily favors one side or the other.
-
@csandman1977 This isn't offensive but I do think you are considerably exaggerating. These new characters aren't any more or less shallow than the previous ones (in general, anyway - bad writing does exist of course) they just have personality traits and characterizations that are unfamiliar and unrelatable to you, so they feel shallow and you don't get the jokes.
Remember the first time you saw a movie that starred a straight white guy? For most people, that would be the first time they saw a movie and has pretty much been every movie since. For a white guy audience, there are so many assumptions and characterizations that don't have to be written because you already share that experience.
Black Panther may not have been the greatest superhero movie for you. But it was the first Marvel movie to star a non-white superhero and that does make a difference to a viewer who does not have "straight white guy" as their life experience when watching the movie. All of those unwritten and unconscious assumptions and characterizations were now open and available for a wider audience to appreciate. Yes, for you - just the same old same old Marvel stuff. But that's because every other Marvel movie was made for you. For people not like you, the vast majority of movies period might seem shallow, unfunny, or stale - just another show/game/movie about a white guy with straight white guy problems.
The reason it seems like these things are just about being a lesbian or being a woman or being black is because for you that's the thing that seems out of place.
-
@Dead_by_Gadfly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1397287#Comment_1397287
Thats not how any of this works. When you hook a survivor and go chase snother survivor, a third survivor has to come off the gen to unhook. Youre pressuring 3 survivors at once when you either hook or slug. Thats why camping is a bad idea, because when you face camp 1 survivir youre only pressuring 1 survivor. This idea screws good killers
Yup, you're right, and why I posted for discussion as I was thinking a bit too narrowly. We probably posted at the same time-ish.
Modified the idea to require a teammate to rescue, but keeping the spawn away mechanic. To compensate for that element of immediate safety, they spawn broken and increasingly injured/vulnerable.
As I mentioned to Orion, I am legitimately interested in the discussion and don't take offense to criticism so I am curious if you think that would make things better. It would still change the meta approach for killers and survivors, but I think it would make the game more frantic and tense for everybody while reducing the incentive to camp/tunnel.
And I am 100% a killer main and not looking to make the game harder or more frustrating than it already is for killers, lol - I personally don't think camping is a huge problem as it's basically a killer forfeit unless the survivors play into it and I also don't believe "tunneling" is a thing as going after injured survivors is exactly what a killer should prioritize. I do, however, see the point that both of these things can be incredibly unpleasant for survivors so I am just brainstorming (for fun, I don't think too much attention is really paid to these kinds of posts) how the mechanics could be tweaked to make things better for everybody.
-
@Orion I do want to make it clear that I am approaching this not as an argument but a conversation - game design thought experiments are fun for me and I do appreciate the back and forth. This isn't an "I disagree hear me internet roar" sort of thing.
In fact, I do see exactly where you are coming from and it presents a challenge. However, I don't agree entirely with your two steps.
The most rewarding thing for a killer, period, is to have a survivor dead - not just for seratonin and adrenaline release, but also because a dead survivor can't work on gens. That's not likely to change no matter what our fantasy DbD looks like, as it's a horror game and the killer's going to need to want to kill at the end of the day.
The easiest way to get a dead survivor is to hit one who is already injured. The easiest injured survivors to hit are the ones who are standing still. The easiest injured survivors who are standing still are the ones who are standing still in a place you know about. That's what the hook mechanic currently is. Now, a smart killer knows that just pulling survivors off of gens to rescue is valuable - but only because it buys him time for more hooks (more death pressure). Hook pressure is great, a 3v1 or 2v1 is worlds better. A less smart killer (which is probably the vast majority of players) is going to overvalue the snowball a death creates and feel far more pressure to at least hang around the hook. Even your top-tier guys will often slow-foot it away from a hook.
What I would like to try and figure is how to make that death pressure move away from the hook. The more you pressure survivors to unhook, without doing that, the more you increase the pressure for the killer to stay nearby - at least half the survivors are there and at least one of them is going to be vulnerable. You can't make anything else more rewarding than that. You can bandaid it with protection hits and second chance perks but that only does two things: one, it makes the killer frustrated because he's getting punished for doing what the game essentially is telling him to do by putting such an obvious scenario in front of him, and two it puts the survivors in the same place as killers as far as gen slowdown is concerned. What's the point of having so many perks if the meta is objectively so much better than anything else? It stagnates the gameplay.
I think to fix that core gameplay loop you need to accomplish the same things as your two steps but with a slightly different perspective:
- You need to move the most vulnerable survivors to where the killer needs to hunt for them, while maintaining reasonable vulnerability (in other words, don't make it so easy for them to be at 100% as if they were never hooked)
- Survivors still need a good reason to choose not to repair gens. Because you (and others) are absolutely right. When survivors have nothing to do but repair gens, they just win.
So to modify the idea based on your feedback we mix in current mechanics:
Survivors don't unhook, instead they place an offering to the Entity that takes the same time and location as unhooking currently does. The rescuer stays at the hook. The hooked survivor then travels to a random spawn location of their choice (similar to demigorgon upside-down travel). If they are rescued in first state, they spawn healthy but broken. A rescue on second state leaves them injured but broken. On third down the killer moris as a sacrifice to the Entity. If the survivor is not rescued the Entity takes them as currently set up.
This would make slightly less hook pressure as the unhook zips safely away, but would still require a teammate to activate. It would create more death pressure map-wide, however, as each hook makes incremental progress in the killer's ability to down the next, so he is hunting for the snowball instead of waiting for it (whether by camping/tunneling or outlasting gen repair).
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1397324#Comment_1397324
You can't damage gens that are already regressing. That also wouldn't solve the issue, which was well summarized by @Nurgling7.
Right. Okay. I don't mean literal Ruin and literal Pop. I mean the way it should work is that gens should automatically regress just as a normal thing and you should be able to kick a gen after a hook and make it worse whether it's already regressing or not. However you want to word it I think killers should have more tools to injure generators as part of their base kit, so that it would require more commitment to specific generators from survivors and less viable to just spread out and work as many as possible at once.
And the idea is to reduce the occasions where it is 1 hook, no chase, 1-3 gens, 1-3 save, cause that's where the game fouls up. In an increasing number of games it feels like either survivors get mad because they can't unhook under a hovering killer or a killer gets mad because the gens are done before they can do much of anything. If it was consistently 1/1/1/1 we wouldn't have camping/tunneling or genrush issues, but the hook mechanics don't actually encourage that as there is so much value placed on the vulnerable, static survivor on the hook and gen progress is relatively permanent until 3-gen.
Brainstorming - what if a pre-spawn hook rescue returned a healthy survivor, even after second hook? The mori on third down I think is still a pretty good way to incentivize healing states, and spawning injured and/or broken would be a less preferable outcome.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1397270#Comment_1397270
This is why the idea would fail. Another idea was to have the first sacrifice stage last indefinitely, which removed all pressure to unhook and forced the killer to roam. It was a ######### show, with survivors having zero incentive to unhook, and thus could rush gens without a care in the world.
That's a very good point, but I do think it's addressable - and needs to be anyway as a committed gen rush is already a giant problem in terms of overall game balance. Hook pressure is more of a bandaid than a solution, and just encourage the exact kind of killer play nobody really enjoys.
I personally think Hex: Ruin 1 should be the default generator state and a weaker Pop should just be base kit. If virtually every killer needs to run gen slowdown perks as a default that's probably a sign that gen slowdown mechanics ought to be a default.
-
@Golden_spider Yeah I'm envisioning no self-unhook attempts or death struggles. Final survivor timer refers to the last one not needing to wait the full minute with no rescue possible, but also giving the killer time to stalk to likely spawn choices.
-
@Nurgling7 Well, ideally you would free the killer to apply pressure more directly to the gens since they wouldn't need to be concerned about hook rescues as much. No pressure to proxy, no time wasted running back to an unhook location.
-
@alaenyia said:
This is an interesting concept, it is a pretty big game changer. Point alottment would have to change as well but it would definately change the camp/tunnel culture that is so rampant currently and I love the idea that 3rd down is a mori not a death hook. Both scarier and more fun.
Yeah this is a suggestion made outside of bloodpoint considerations, which is just a spreadsheet decision more than a game balance one. You'd also want to tweak hook and repair timers too, as now their function would be to remove a survivor from gen repair rather than to provide a window for rescue.
It'd also severely reduce the value of unhook perks for survivors, but I don't think that's a bad thing as that meta is pretty stale.
-
@Victor_hensley said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1395588#Comment_1395588
Glad you understand, and while yes, people can be prideful for being LGBT and it can even contribute a little bit to their personalities, but being LGBT is not a personality (or at least it shouldn't be). I don't like it when people classify people as "the gay guy", or "the bisexual woman" etc. as there are much more to them than that.
Tokenism is a real concern and if we were discussing an issue with how BVHR implemented wider representation and not whether they should, this would be a different conversation.
However it's also important to remember that we're dealing with a video game already pretty light on characterization whose whole deal is to capitalize on horror tropes. None of the characters are much more than vague stereotypes, really, and it seems odd to me that there's a sudden outpouring of concern that potential LGBT characters won't have depth and nuance when that isn't a requirement for anybody else.
-
The OP is on the first page.
The only reason to bring up TLOU2 in the context of his complaint is in regards to having non-binary characters as that is the only characteristic about that game that links it to his general complaint. Are you trying to tell me that he brings up TLOU2 in the context of a complaint about representation as a "bad game" for other, unrelated, reasons and it just coincidentally happens to have a non-binary protagonist? Right.
The only examples of representation "done wrong" provided in the OP are two TV shows who are "pushing an agenda." Whatever this 'agenda' consists of is never explained or demonstrated beyond the meme slogan which itself doesn't really have a bearing on anything except to criticize the concept of wider representation. Probably because the 'agenda' is, "hey guys, gay people exist and that's ok. Look, here's one don't be afraid." And I don't particularly care if people feel like that message is being forced on them, because it's important. LGBT people in real life don't get to loop around pallets when the monster is chasing them.
You have to either be extraordinarily charitable and/or not very good at reading for comprehension to ignore the bigotry in the OP - this "citation needed" nonsense is pedantic misdirection. Yeah, it's more "I'm not racist but...." than all out rabid foam at the mouth stuff but give me a break. Try this - imagine BVHR said "all of our characters are white so we are going to make an effort to introduce other races" or "all of our characters are dudes so we are going to make some female characters" and put the OP's argument in that context.
-
@Victor_hensley said:
I'm fine with it, as long as they don't make it their "personalty" because being LGBT is not a personality, and people who think so don't know what being LGBT means (i'm not a part of the LGBT community, but I don't like forced representation in any media, and the LGBT community is THE thing these days as a "look, we have a gay character, that mean we are very progressive!")
Yeah, it'd be nice if it didn't have to be "forced" (by who? or is this the gay mafia again?). It would also be nice if having representation didn't signify some sort of political or social stance. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in, and I'd rather companies and producers err on the side of hurting the feelings (?) of cisgender gamers or media consumers who view any steps towards a more inclusive environment with an honestly weird level of skepticism and hostility.
No, being LGBT is not a personality. However for a number of LGBT individuals their status and pride in it is integral to their personality. It's not really up to you to decide how an LGBT person should act, and it's not really something you should feel the responsibility to approve or disprove of.