MidniteWolfy
MidniteWolfy
About
- Username
- MidniteWolfy
- Joined
- Visits
- 94
- Last Active
Comments
-
Ok I've uploaded a video of the bug
SORRY the lighting is really bad because of a bug with nvidia instant replay files, but regardless, you can see the light beam bug even with bad lighting.
In past games today, the beam goes out for even longer, talking about 3, 4 seconds of just being dead/not working.
-
@Eleghost said:
killers could be using lightborn
They're absolutely not using lightborn, I'm asking them about it aftewards but they say that they're not being blinded
On my screen I'm aiming the flashlight, you can see the visual beam coming out in a cone for just a second, then it "fizzles" out like the battery is malfunctioning or the flashlight died. My character is aiming the flashlight like normal, but no more cone of light is coming out, the killer is TOTALLY NOT BLINDED, he slashes me in the face for my stupidity and then I die in agony. I ask him what happened after match, he says, maybe I wasn't aiming it right because he didn't get blinded. I'm gonna upload a clip of it asap, i have it processing right now
-
Yes very much. I'm not sure if this is a hack or just programming but whenever the killer is console ghostface, I've had matches where they seem to be immune to breaking out of their power. The reason I thought it was hacks more than a few times is because they stand out in the open, no tree, nothing and just stand still and stare at me and I'm like, staring daggers at their face and its NOT working. I had a match where all 4 of us couldn't break him out of his power and its just inexplicable.
-
Its kinda sad tbh cause even high profile twitch streamers who have NEVER played dirty before this point (a specific one I'm thinking of) have turned to camping with this new killer, on the reasoning that that was what this killer was designed to do. And honestly.. they're right. This killer excels at the camping game.
My solution to this problem is a bit more comprehensive than what most people are suggesting.
I think that there should be a total rehaul on survivor perks. Right now there are too many perks for too many nuanced effects. A lot of perk effects should be compiled so that you can will rarely ever have a perk without some use. For example: Botany knowledge should allow you to also stifle bleeding on yourself/friendly targets (with a cooldown). Borrowed time should also have Babysitter blended in. Leader and Prove Thyself should be one perk. Fixated should allow you to walk without triggering traps/alerting victor. Etc
How does this tie into the Twins? Well, if there were more utility from common perks, you could potentially run a healer set that can help with bleeding - which would help with victor. Using borrowed time wouldn't just save you from a hit, but also help you from being tracked by the killer at least for a few seconds. Iron will could be combined with Lucky Break. I dunno if you're feeling what I'm saying but - using other perks rather than the meta perks should be optional and fun and if they have helpful effects for more than just 1 killer, that would be awesome.
Look at Sole Survivor for example. This perk would kill for slugging killers with Deerstalker or wallhack myers. But why would anyone pick those perks now, if it only works for a single scenario? Having compiled perks would make the game more fun and exciting and help with tons of new situations that we haven't experienced yet. Presently I try to run BT and babysitter to counter the twins and sometimes I use Lucky Break myself, but it sucks when i pick babysitter and luckybreak but then the killer isn't the twins - and I just wasted 2 perks.
-
2 changes would fix this:
Allow the survivor to pick themselves up if slugged more than 3 minutes.
Make it so that if a survivor has not touched a gen or healed a slugged teammate for over 5 minutes they get crows, even if they're on the move. Reset timer when in chase/within killer terror radius.
-
It is playing dirty and you should feel bad. This is nothing to worry about. Your inner morality module is functioning properly.
In this context, the misunderstanding on the survivor side is seeing that only escape = win.
Technically you still lose with this playstyle because you get VERY little BP for the victory so you walk away with nothing and the survivors lose very little time moving onto the next match.
....however, because of how the game is programmed, the survivors actually can lose a hefty chunk of their rank, especially if they're rank 1, they'll be pushed to rank 2 because of that. This is not either surv or killers fault, this is behaviours programming. If a killer camps and tunnels you and you didn't have a chance in heck to win, you shouldn't depip so easily, but its just unfortunate. This is yet another (of hundreds) of reasons why some sort of anti tunnel/camp system should be implemented internally rather than through perks.
My suggestion is that they should just have some point modifiers in place similar to We're Gonna Live Forever. As the killer plays, attacking the same person within X minutes results in a "camping" bonus for example, or chasing the same person directly off hook etc. There can be an assortment of different "bonuses" (so to speak) and after the match, these would actually subtract points for displeasing the entity. The whole point is that the entity wants to be pleased with good chases and exciting kills, so to displease the entity results in loss of rank.
The reason that it should directly be tied to scoring and ranking is because thats what just abotu everyone cares about. Everyone wants to get to, and stay at, red ranks. Losing rank SUCKS. So tie the behavior of the game to the score - to the rank - and you'll have a long term stable solution to all of these problems.
-
I think sometimes we get so involved in mechanics that we muddle up the solution to some common problems. How about this as a simple solution that covers ALL the bases:
Implement a better and more comprehensive RATING system.
Allow green and purple killers to have bloodlust.
Disable bloodlust for red ranks.
Any questions?
-
At the end of the day its dependent on a read
If you're on death hook and the killer is distracted by a teammate, crawling away could be best if they return to get you only 15-20 seconds later, cause then they have to find you and maybe they can't find you in time (if theres just 1 gen left or something) and then you can recover in a corner, get picked up
But if the killer doesn't come back for you and the teammate they were chasing tries to pick you up and you're not recovered, boom its like you made a bad read
But you don't know until it happens, so its a read. You can't flip a coin, get tails and then say, this is why we don't flip coins because tails sucks, but then when it lands heads you're like - this is why we flip coins cause it rocks. Its gonna be one or the other
HOWEVER, in some cases where the survivor has had more than enough time to both escape the killer and crawl a mile away and they're not recovered? Yea.. hate those guys
-
@Yamaoka said:
Franklin's tells me they didn't quick switch.
Also:
"They looked like noobs (no skins/itens) and then in the last second (:07) changed to key + map combo.
Absolutely dirty, right?"
*plays slugging Nurse with Infectious Fright and Knockout*
I mean, its a 4k with just 17k bp.. hint hint
-
My idea for decisive strike is this:
Each time you are unhooked you generate a token, up to 2 tokens. Tokens will degrade over time only when not in chase with the killer, over 40 seconds. Each token provides you with a 10% bonus to movement speed and vaulting speed. In addition each token reduces the BP gains for associated killer interactions by 50%. For example, if the killer still catches you with 1 token he only gets 50% bp for the hook and sacrifice, or if he tunnels you and hooks you again, he gets 100% reduction to any points gained for that hook and sacrifice unless you are the last survivor standing. (there should be a visual indicator to let both surv. and killer know this is active)
The reason for the BP effects is that once killers start to see that they're going to lose out on points for tunneling, they won't do it, HOWEVER, its not a detriment if they need to tunnel you for whatever reason for the kill. So its a mix between giving the survivor a bit extra survival and lowering the reward for tunneling. Right now, a huge chunk of newer killers tunnel because it just makes sense and is the least work to go for the injured survivor, but the game kinda rewards them for that and if you alter the reward you ought to alter the gameplay.
-
Hag
-
Object Of Obsession now generates tokens each time you look at the killer. Looking at the killer once generates the first token automatically, then generates additional tokens every 4 seconds sustained time looking at the killer. These tokens will degrade at double the speed they are generated, for example, 8 seconds will remove a token. Each token gives the killer a 3% bonus to movement speed, when in chase with the OoO. When hit by the killer with any attack, all tokens are removed.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
I was kinda on board with this idea (I'm not exactly a fan but it's not the worst thing I've heard) until I read the part about being able to rate people as toxic and you losing Bloodpoints over this.
If you think the dbd player base won't abuse the ######### out of this, you're sorely mistaken.
I've been called toxic for tunneling someone when they were the first hooked, and killed themselves on first hook. I've been called toxic for facecamping whilst I'm literally hooking someone on the other side of the map. I've been called toxic because I used purple Windstorm on Wraith. I've been called toxic because I brought in a flashlight and didn't use it, because I had a medkit, or a toolbox, or because I played Claudette. I try my absolute best to be wholesome, and there are so many more matches where nothing has been said, or even I've been complimented, but holy ######### this community is arse and can and will abuse the ######### out of this because of something they personally dislike.
Looping? Toxic. Stealth? Toxic. Saving a teammate? Toxic. Doing a gen? Toxic. Using Dead Hard? Toxic. Hooking a survivor? Toxic. Kicking a gen? Toxic. Slugging a survivor? Toxic. Camping a hook? Toxic. Leaving the area? Toxic.
Its not necessary to have a toxic rating system. You could just use the positive rating system which would encourage people who are choosing to play in toxic ways to play differntly so they can get the badges and associated perks. I didn't list any core perk ideas for killer but if i spent a while I could name some. In this way, you wouldn't need the toxic rating system at all.
Despite that, toxicity DOES exist in this game. The argument that some people might misconstrue toxicity is indeed valid, but then it comes down to how the rating system itself would work. Presently, if you report someone for hacking in dbd, behavior doesn't just drop everything and investigate your report. They honestly couldn't care less about it.. but why? Its because most times, hacking reports are just misconstrued, where a person might feel that another player dodged an attack that should have hit, or they vaulted a pallet a bit fast, or there was a visual glitch and they appeared to move odd or they found a way to run onto a rock, etc. So what behavior does is require a minimum number of reports, CONSISTENTLY, to respond to a hacker. If a person gets 1 report in 10 games for hacking, its probably just an error, but 8 reports out of 10 matches, you have something there to investigate.
Similarly, a toxic rating system would take into account the percentage of false-reporters. You would have a system somewhere along the lines of - if more than 50% of survivors rate you toxic in 3 out of every 5 games, or 6 out of 10, or 9/15 12/20 15/25 then you would accrue a hidden value of toxic rating. Now, getting a few points of toxic rating doesn't immediately label you toxic, it has to be CONSISTENT. These points would degrade over time as well, where if you go 10 games without reports, it would just fall off the record, but if it was consistently rated and slowly ramped up to a certain value (we'll call that, X), then BAM you get hit with a notification when you log in to play the game. "You have recieved a significant number of toxic ratings. Please try to play fair!" and then if the trend continues, you get the toxic core perk applied for 3 games. So on and so forth.
Now you could also say, well, this number is also sketchy, make it 4 out of 5 games or 8/10, 12/15, 16/20 then okay we can try that out and see if it works out.
But I don't see that this system is wrong. If a killer is being toxic.. who else can blow the whistle to identify it? It HAS to be the people who were in the match. No one else was there to see it. And theres no better people to report toxicity than the victims of toxicity. We can adjust how that data is interpreted, but the core system of "see toxicity, speak up" is not inherently flawed, its how the data is processed and how action is taken. Right now? No action is taken against toxicity. Its a flat zero. Somehow, some way, that needs to change.
-
@Hex_Llama said:
re: giving other players kudos and rating them as toxic -- I've also thought about this. I instinctively agree that if the community had a way to reward good behaviour, it might encourage people to be less toxic, but I've never been able to think of a system for doing it that can't be abused and wouldn't get distorted by the fact that it's 4 vs 1.
For example, this thread suggests that a player would be considered toxic if 3/4 (more than 50%) of the other players in the match consistently rate them as toxic. The problem is that, because it's 4 vs 1, and because SWF exists (meaning, because people are queuing with friends they have loyalty to and not strangers) it's very easy to get 3 toxic votes against a killer, and very difficult to get 3 toxic votes against a survivor, whether or not anyone was actually toxic.
The benefit system can be made to work without a toxicity system at all - in other words, if a killer isn't getting "good killer" ratings after games, eventually he may lose some really good Core perks (of which I didn't invent any in this thread) and if he wants them, would have to try playing less toxic. But having the toxicity system in place would need constant tweaks and monitoring to ensure its working as intended. Now, we know behavior would never actually do this, so we're only discussing this as PURE theory. But my take on it is this: a killer would have to be getting a toxic rating really often in order to be labeled as toxic. In other words, as a survivor, you have 4 rating you in every game, but as a killer, it would be 1/4th of a that rating, meaning every 4 game ratings would be equal to one rating if you were survivor. So you'd need to get out of 25 games, I'd say like 20 games rated toxic before you got a warning/notification of toxic rating and if you continued, bam, you get the toxic perk tacked on and you can't remove it until those ratings drop. You could do percentage like, 80% of all games rated toxic over 20 games = toxic status.
IMO a system like this would be good for the developers because they can just drop all their resources used for keeping up with reports and build a system that works itself automatically, free'ing them for other tasks they can focus on.
Oh, also swf groups would work differently. Naturally they would count as a single vote or perhaps rating system is entirely disabled in groups, otherwise they would just rate each other as great people even if they're all jerks. Overall, rating anyone in your friends list would be disabled. Another good thing would be that if the killer or another player rates them toxic (assuming they're in a group of 2 or 3 with 1 solo) then the rating applies to ALL of them at the same time, which means, the group that is toxic together gets penalties together.
-
I dunno about the whole "give hatch to people who earned it" mentality and I'll explain why. I watch a couple youtubers who play nothing but dbd (won't mention their names here) and I've seen a handful of games where a survivor is VERY GOOD. Not toxic.. just good. Looping killer for a nice long time, dodging shots, dodging attacks, timing perfect pallets, getting the best pallet or flashlight saves etc and then the whole team dies and its just them left standing
And you know what happens? The killer will be so annoyed or feel like they worked so hard against this 'sweaty' survivor that they will hook them even if they admit defeat. Its a cyclical mindset where you're going to hook them if they're too good because you feel YOU earned it (even tho technically, they earned the hatch) and if they don't give you a struggle at all, you're just gonna say "meh they didn't EARN the hatch"
Or at least, I've seen that happen from about 4 different dbd players who claim to give the hatch to people who earned it, which gives me some doubt.
Me, personally, I empathize with survivors. If I think that they didn't have a chance to win, either because their teammates dcd or were just goofing off and this one person was trying - or if 3 of them are toxic and one person wasn't toxic and was abandoned by the other guys, i'll give em the hatch. If the game was exceptionally easy, i'll often give the hatch to the last person. If a person goes down painfully close to the hatch, I'd rather give it to them instead of picking them up while they probe the hatch with their outstretched fingers.
Oh and if I'm playing piggy and someone boops my snoot, they automatically get the hatch (unless they were toxic beforehand)
-
I see your title has a typo and I'm here to fix it for you:
"Survivors who use perks incorrectly are the worst"
-
This is not so much an issue with the dbd community as it is a psychological problem, and not only with particular groups but as a whole - about the whole world has shifted away from the apology/acceptance mindset into a more battle oriented defensive/offensive mindset. Maybe this has to do with the internets growth itself, where you have more opinions being shared around the world than ever before in human history, not to mention in such HIGH SPEED where opinions lead to decisions lead to change lead to worldview lead to common perception lead to this and that etc etc etc. The only way to compete in a world, psychologically, when your opinion is instantly put up to battle against thousands of other opinions on a daily basis is to be aggressive and if you're NOT aggressive or more kind/soft/empathic, you will get trampled.
Ideally we should live in a world where if you share an opinion with me, my goal is to understand where you're coming from, then meet you with my own perception and you SHOULD also see where i'm coming from when i start talking to you, we both admit 'aha, this is where we got offtrack" and then realize that when you really break it down, we both want the same/similar things, but see things differently from our own unique perspectives, then we can come to understanding and acceptance. However, in todays world, if you admit that you're wrong about something, its like you're discrediting yourself entirely - and everyone who agrees with you - and you wind up getting hurt for your moment of vulnerability. Our empathy often isn't met with empathy and what people learn from this (in their psychological development) is that if you want to not-get-hurt, don't open yourself up to people.
Too often you can even prove someone wrong entirely about something, using just logic, but the danger of admitting you're wrong in todays internet-world is so great - and your identity is in so much danger - that you'd have no choice but to keep to your opinion even if its entirely illogical, just to be 'safe'.
Anyway this reply turned out to be much longer than I intended, but I see your point.
-
I agree that Freddy needs some kind of rework entirely. He's the only killer that can go afk and still impact the survivors. He's also the only killer in my opinion that isn't fun to go against. With every other killer there can be a fun aspect; you found trappers best traps, you used a flashlight on hag, you still looped with distorted clown vision, you dodged spirit/nurse after teleport, you hit legion with a pallet in power, you dodged oni charge - etc. You can always have a conversation about a fun interaction or play you made against a killer, but what about Freddy? You can't dodge his traps, can't flashlight them, you can't avoid his power. (Looping doesn't count, it's not unique to Freddy) What are you going to talk about after the match? "Oh my God guys did you see how awesome it was when I missed that skillcheck to wake up! Clutch play, right?!"
-
I personally feel that I just have to try. Yea I know its a basement bubba but it doesn't feel right to let a teammate just die. Plus, if you're solo its just not worth it (I only play solo) cause yea you're working on a gen but the other 2 are not. So you get 1 gen done and the guy dies now he's up to the next person and you are working on gen #2 and half the team is dead and it won't accomplish anything - its only worth it to work on gens IF you're in a swf, otherwise, its a lose lose. Thats why you still have killers at rank 1 who play bubba style - camping and tunneling, because against solos, the cohesion isn't there. This means: bubba style is HIGH reward gameplay and can get you up the ranks super fast, super easy.
-
@Moundshroud said:
As a Myer's player, it hurt me to watch Mikey not breaking the pallet in that last loop... for so long. I abhor bad sportsmanship and thus I do not approve of the Salt they gave you after the game. That being said, you should put yourself in their shoes. From their perspective you didn't ever try to get them off the hook or pick them off the ground. Did you have opportunities? Yes. You made the calculation that it was too risky. I suppose you had decided to let them all die and go for the hatch. You had an option to pick the slugged one up while Mikey broke the pallet and you were right next to her. I'd be willing to bet she was recovered to the point where a second is all that would have taken. The two that died on hook, well, let's be honest there were lots of times when you could have given it a shot.
I'm not judging you. I'm just being honest. I'm sure your assessment was the safe bet, but I'm also sure from their point of view it looked like you wrote them off pretty early in the game. So, bad on them for being Salty beyond good sportsmanship. I say, "if you can't say anything nice... say nothing at all." I do have sympathy for them though, and I don't think you are supposed to show their names on the Forum. It is called "naming and shaming." I've done it and it will get you a warning (and rightly so).
I disagree with you. If you watch the video i posted at exactly 3:40 and again at 3:48 you can see her health bar appear at the bottom of the screen. I was purposefully trying to see the healthbar, I expected it to be 99%, but.. it wasn't. She was crawling around the entire time i was chased and when I had the chance to run over her body, she wasn't ready to be picked up. So to say that you assessed that i was going to ditch the team and was trying to go for a hatch when myers was no less than 2 feet behind me the entire time is nuts lol - The hatch didn't exist with 2 of them on hooks and one bleeding out - I was running for my life and had he stopped to break that pallet, i was going to make a dash for the hooks, but they didn't break the pallet so I couldn't. I'm new to posting vids, I gotta figure out how to get the software to block out names.
-
Solo survivor is just 99 losses 1 win now. Especially with the hag? Whaaat, hags are like birthday celebrations now.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
Just a FYI with your story, the chest makes a LOT more noise than survivors think. A killer in the shack above will hear you going through the chest. So what they probably saw was you purposefully getting the killers attention while leaving your fellow survivors high and dry.
Yea, I know that it certainly hit that note with them lol! I don't know how much noise the chest makes since I'm still kinda new, but I thought - he's far enough that I'm not in his terror radius, he won't hear the chest and he only has the hook aura to know if I'm here, so it felt like it was a good idea, i realize now it was baaad
-
@katoptris said:
If you don't me asking what do you play on???
Just PC, i downloaded from steam for the sale a couple weeks ago
-
@RoMainPuppy said:
Pretty sure you could report them all if you have video evidence. Especially if the killer let everyone else escape and you die (you didn't say whether you lived or died) as that could be considered working with the killer. Also what happened to the fourth survivor?
To answer your actual question though, no I wouldn't say it was justified. You made a play that turned out to be the wrong one, that doesn't justify the killer AND the other survivors acting the way they did. They were total dicks, and I'd report all of them.
Either way they held the game hostage for you (25 minutes, 25 MINUTES), and that's really messed up. I'm curious, did you happen to check if the killer and the other survivors have each other on their friends list? That maybe it was all intentional bait to attempt to grief/troll?
Idk that whole situation was messed up, and you have a far better temper than me, I woulda lost my #########.
I do have nvidia instant replay so I recorded the last 5 minutes, but the whole scenario was so long that I only captured the end exit-door part. I did think of reporting for unsportsmanlike behavior, but I had already left the match and I think you can only report in the end-game screen? I'm not sure. But ya the 5m recording doesn't capture the whole thing just the final part.