StibbityStabbity
StibbityStabbity
About
- Username
- StibbityStabbity
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,317
- Last Active
Comments
-
Windows has built-in sound equalization options.
Better ban PC players.
-
Going to hop on the bandwagon here a bit:
I think the best killers are the ones with rather basic abilities. Those basic abilities tend to be VERY open ended, allowing the killer player to express their skill with that basic ability which results in them developing their own playstyle. Blight was, in my opinion, one of the last good killer designs (not counting addons or bugs/exploits). Wesker is close, but comes with some poopfart stuff attached that I personally don't care for, but I respect the skill expression he allows players. Other killers come with skillful elements, sure, but they are also hindered with a laundry list of extra mechanics that they have to play into in order to do well, which also makes balancing their key features a pain because their main ability must be balanced alongside a shopping list of other mechanics that play out in the background. Also, as a general rule, I personally don't like any killer that must spawn counterplay options because the design required it. Pig is, perhaps, the only exception I feel for this, though it's likely just bias towards liking Pig.
Now, I don't think that means newer killers are too strong. Not categorically, anyways. If anything, they are overly complex, and those complexities can either hinder the killer player, or confuse the survivor players into not being sure what they are supposed to be doing. The strength of a killer shouldn't be perceived as how confusing they are to understand. -
So, here's what I'm seeing thus far:
50% seems to be what most people agree with. That would be, as metrics currently go, 2k.
Others have said 2.5k, which I understand entirely. If one were to assume that 2k is what someone would likely score on an even playing field and without other obstacles or bonuses to modify performance, it would mean that 2 players likely received more pressure than the other 2. At 2.5k, however, this means a third player likely received a fair amount of pressure but would, mathematically, make it out on average.
Nobody has pushed any of the more fringe opinions in the matter within this thread thus far, which is honestly kind of disappointing. I have seen users that stated Killers should be challenged just to score a single kill by the end of the game, but those people only ever seem to want to mention this in passing and never explain their opinion. Was hoping to get one to do so here.
However, a fair number of people have said they would rather hooks be the scoring metric rather than kills. Now, I don't disagree with this sentiment, but it would require a rebuild of the games scoring mechanics. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it's a thing. That being said, I asked about kill rates, not if hooks should replace them. Still, these are good things to discuss.
-
@crogers271 said:
I don't mind the 60% rate that much. I get the idea of making survivor escapes more challenging to be more worthwhile. As a player who prefers survivor, I doubt I'd enjoy it as much if I was escaping every other game.
I also don't think the 60% rate is anywhere close to the biggest problem the game has - the presence / ease of certain playstyles on both can really undermine the game.
But if it was up to me to shoot for a percentage, the 60 rate feels a little too high. I'd like it pushed down closer to 55 and see how that feels.
This should be vanilla vs vanilla. A baseline. Lower kills per match would balance them towards being weaker, higher kills toward stronger. SoloQ and SWF should not be factored into this.I just don't think this is possible though. One of the game issues is that it is much easier for the killer to go at 100% of their potential (best perks, top addons, complete focus on the game) then survivors. To be at 100% survivors have to get four people together, experience as a team, and each of them has to be playing at their best. To try and balance kill rates around a world in which killers and survivors of perfectly equal skill always matched each other would be impossible - but if it was possible, 50% kill rate would be the appropriate answer.
The issue is that Killers need to be designed and balanced in a bit of a vacuum. If you balance them around "possible bonuses" of any kind, you might gimp them when those bonuses aren't in play. Conversely, if they are balanced around strong opponents, you might over power them. Therefor, Killers likely NEED to be designed and balanced around the concept of playing on completely even terms, and without perks to muddy up the perception of how balanced they are. I will be the first to admit this has problems, but with how DbD is currently designed, it's the best way to do it.
-
Nurse has the same chance of being deleted as all the other killers and survivors that got deleted.
-
MOBAs are far worse than DbD.
DbD mostly just has a lot of entitlement and whining. Criticism is fine, but the amount of aimless crying is a bit much.
-
Why would they put an intentional mechanic in the game and ban people for using it?
-
What would you recommend to fix it that wouldn't be exploited by killers or survivors?
-
Scared #########less
Remove your fear, and please wipe after.
Scared #########less starts with no tokens. Every 60/50/40 seconds spent in the killers terror radius creates 1 token of Scared #########less. When the survivor vaults a pallet or window, they lose all bowel control and leave a little brown dropping. Their next fast vault causes the notification to occur on the dropping rather than the survivor. The dropping is removed after being activated.
WELL AKSHUALLY
Tell them how bad they are, and punish their mistakes.
While healing another survivor from injured to full health, the player may activate WELL AKSHUALLY instead. The affected survivor knows how they've been playing wrong, and now performs better. Healing and generator repair speeds are increased 10% for the next 30 seconds. However, during that time, the survivor is Exposed. Hiding in a locker will cause the survivor to scream.
Take A Hit
Spread the pain.
While healing another survivor, the player may activate Take A Hit. This causes them to heal the survivor instantly, but transfers 1 hook count from the player to the survivor. This only works is the player has more hook counts than the survivor they are healing.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3581343#Comment_3581343
It certainly has unique animations for when carrying a survivor as Charles' spirit. But from what I've seen, the actual 'Chucky' gameplay is as close to what survivors see as is possible.
I thought the same at first, but then I saw how it looked for the killer to move at certain angles, which makes Chucky look like he's sliding a bit. I might spend some time with the ptb testing all of this, but some small oddities had me thinking that the killer is seeing a separate model. Mostly the sliding I noticed on several streams. It may also be a limitation caused by how they made his animations, though.
-
I understand that the physics shape is the killer model is the same as survivors. However, I'm asking if the killer is seeing the same model as the survivors, or if they are seeing a separate model.
Case in point: killers see a modified version of the killer model with a missing head and stretched limbs to accomplish having their weapon always in view. The killer model is there, but modified to work in first person. Meanwhile, survivors see a Killer model with no modifications and a different animation set. Hence why Meyers always sees his weapon being held up while survivors see his weapon at his waist level. This is all common practice in first person games. Chucky could follow a modified version of this, where the killers pov model is very similar to what survivors see, but still uses a few modified animations for specific interactions. This would explain a couple things as well, such as not seeing the red stain (which I assume is a consequence of not seeing the killer model the survivors see, which is specifically modified to project red light).
-
@BlueRose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526131#Comment_3526131
You don't know how hard it would be since you know you are not a game dev. You have no clue how much time and money the dev would have to do to put in voice comms and police it. Just adding a mute button doesnt mean they don't have to police comms. Every game that has a voice has a mute button but guess what they still police comms and ban ppl for slurs and other things. You can't just add a mute button and call it a day.
Now put yourself in the dev's shores for a moment. You put in the hard work, hours, and money to add voice comms in a game that is already been made for years and even add a system to police it. Then you see that most players either keep it off or use the comms to be toxic. Only a very few players use it for the reason why you made it in the first place. Not really worth the time and money now is it? Why add something to a game that is just either going to be not used or be abused by toxic ppl? The biggest thing is TCM and other games were designed with voice in mind and those systems were put in as the game code was being made. DBD wasn't and adding a new system to the already made code would not be as easy as you may think.
They use the Unreal Engine, which actually has native VOIP. Essentially, it's already in the engine. It has Global, Team, and Local voice chat already built into it. Ya, they would need to craft the visual queues for it, but the underlying system that powers it is already (technically) in the game. From there, UE has APIs that allow the developer to tailor how it works and interacts with their servers, other servers, etc.
-
Legion has great chase music.
-
I honestly believe that VC would mostly benefit the game. Some things would need to be rebalanced because of the ability to share information, but that's something that can be adjusted over time to fit the new dynamic among survivors.
However, I don't think DBD should have VC. Not for any "good" reason, just that the community is so hell-bent against it.
Every worst case scenario would apparently come true with VC. The community, which is considered very LGBTQ+ and female friendly, would turn into a bigoted mess over night. Somehow. The older audience that DBD enjoys would suddenly become 12 year olds screaming gamer words 24/7. Somehow. The poor people that hook out at the beginning of a Trapper match or spend the whole game hiding would have to endure the horror of their team telling them to be productive. Tragic. New players would have to experience the torture of their team telling them, in real time, how to play better and coaching them so they much more quickly learn how to be proficient at the game instead of spending weeks to months having to research it themselves and figure out what they did wrong or just giving up. It would be pandemonium.
I'm not saying bad things wouldn't happen. They absolutely would. But I personally don't think it would be the average experience. However, Ben Afflecks Batman said it best: "If there is even a 1% chance that we could have a bad interaction in a video game, we have to take that as an absolute certainty."
So ya, don't add VC to DBD. The vocal community simply doesn't want it, regardless of the potential benefits.
-
@lidokain said:
It sounds like a washing machine
Yup.
-
Does it hurt?
-
@Veroles said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3426674#Comment_3426674
How on earth could it be possible that a game what lives in a total different genre will cause an effect on the number of players which play DBD? Almost every couple of month there is a kind of hyped game which is on the way. What does Diablo 4 offer what other games were not able to and why that has any impact on DBD?
Because games that draw a large audience gets that audience from somewhere. Diablo fans aren't sitting around, not playing other games while they wait.
-
Make it so that if a killer spends too long near a hook, the survivor is taken by the entity and placed on the furthest hook away (hook state regression stays the same to prevent this from being abused into an infinite hook state). This will make face camping less beneficial, will make a hook save easier (so long as the survivors are paying attention), and in the event that a survivor is making the killer chase them around the hook, will punish both by denying the save AND the camp. This would be a cumulative metric per hook, and would reset when the hook doesn't have a survivor on it. Every time the killer gets within range of the hook, the hook would add to the metric per second. This way, if a killer is waiting out of range of the hook, survivors also have the option to bait the killer into range to proc the mechanic. The mechanic COULD have its own regression as well, in order to allow for instances of a killer not actually camping a hook but, in chase or otherwise, briefly gets near the hook and incurs the anti-camp charge.
To prevent ranged killers from abusing this, they could make it so that hitting the hook with ranged attacks increases the anti-camp charge. This would allow anyone going for the save or specifically trying to punish a ranged killer for camping with LoS but out of distance the ability to bait ranged attacks and hide behind the hook. The ranged attacks could also slow down the hook state to compensate for ranged killers trying to mitigate their anti-camper charges.
That said, this function shuts off in EGC. At that point, camping a hook is fair game, and I don't see an issue with it.
The amount of charge needed to set off the relocation would have to be experimented with. Right NOW, I'd say 20 seconds additively with 1 charge per second within 16m of the hook. The charges would degrade based on how far away the killer is form the hook. 16-24 meters would be 1 charge reduction every 10 seconds. 24-32 meters would be 2 charges per 10 seconds. 32+ meters would be 3 charges per second. So, the further away the killer stays, the better, but they can still operate fairly well outside of 16 meters without tripping the anti-camp in order to do ther grizzly business. If they are swooping in to stop a save organically (ie: Not camping, but followed someone in), I'm hoping 20 seconds would be enough time to cover that. Testing would be required to shorten or lengthen the time they are alloted.
When the anti-camp is triggered and the hooked suvivor is relocated, the original hook is broken in a Sabo style and will come back at the normal rate of all Sabo'd hooks. This prevents the killer from abusing the anti-camp to just keep getting fresh hooks via relocation.
The amount of charge gained by a ranged attack would need to be on a PER KILLER BASIS, as it has to allow for killers to, you know, miss a legitimate shot and not be super punished by it. My GUESS on this would be as follows:
Huntress: 5 charges per hit. This allows 4 hits onto the hooked survivor.
Deathslinger: 5 charges per hit. This allows 4 hits onto the hooked survivor.
Trickster: 1 charge per hit. This allows 20 hits onto the hooked survivor, as Trickster is intentionally designed to be spammy and missed shots aren't uncommon even when played well.
Basement Hooks are immune to this. This is due to the fact that a killer could easily spend 20 seconds chasing someone around the structure housing the entrance to basement and unwittingly set off the anti-camp without any foul play intended. This mechanic should not be used to punish players not trying to camp, and I'd rather avoid punishing innocent players, even if it means letting a guilty one go in this instance.
It's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with on the fly that would have an immediate impact without just denying killers their power or the ability to protect their hook when it happens organically.
-
I had no idea SM had such a vocal Internet Defense Force.
-
Balanced perks, for every positive there is an equal negative. Too often DLC releases with a new perk selection which gives one side a great perk and the other side gets three new perks which do bupkiss.
I'm curious, do you mean for this to be universal or is this specifically targeted for killers? I ask because of the things you said previously, where you feel survivors need more help and killers need a reduction in performance.
-
So, in theory, that means making healing faster would be the opposite, and not incentivize tunneling?
Then killers would simply have to hit someone and... keep chasing the same person and never give them any time alone because that might allow them to heal the damage away quickly. Odd, that sounds like it incentivizes tunneling.
Well, your logic can't be wrong, so I guess everything incentivizes tunneling.
(The actual issue is that the core game design makes tunneling as strong as it is and the objectives would have to changed drastically in order to make tunneling no longer a strong strategy, but it's pretty obvious that neither the dev nor the community would be keen on changing the core gameplay loop at this point. Every minor change gets doom-mongering, so a major change like that would make everyones heads explode and probably result in a lot of people blaming real life medical conditions on a video game)
-
It's my money, I'll spend it on things I want.
I don't want Snore Merchant.
If they want my money, they can do my job and earn my paycheck. Otherwise, they have to offer me something I want.
-
Legion because they suck at killing anyone.
Nea because they kill everyone.
-
First, say "ggwp".
If they start ANY amount of salt, say "lol ok".
The fact you got DDOSed, however, shows that one of them probably just plays to fish for killer players and try to run them out of the game. As if chasing killer players out of the game would somehow improve things. Or they want the game to die and want to feel the "success" of thinking they are part of what killed it. Regardless, there is nothing you could have done about that, they were committed to that action before they ever entered your lobby.
-
I doubt that they would cap Haste because the design ethos seems to be that they want players to be able to stack perks without them being nerfed/capped/diminished for their specific selections.
Basically, they want all perks to work the same, all the time, with few (if any) caps or exceptions. It's understandable too, as making perks not have diminishing returns or caps on specific mechanics makes everything easy to read and consistent. The most you could realistically hope for is some of the strongest Haste perks to either get a reduction in how much speed they afford, or how long they last. Essentially, each perk that is a problem would need the face values lowered, rather than caps or diminishing returns applied.
Similarly, when I see people say "This perk shouldn't work with this perk" as an arbitrary restriction, it simply not something they commonly do. If ever.
-
"Well, I get extra BP if I play killer today, so Feng, you will be sidelined while I go tunnel and camp for several hours. I'll be back after I make a post about how much I hate it when killers tunnel and camp."
Basically that.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3358626#Comment_3358626
You are being more than a bit hyperbolic, but glad we are on the same page.
I just pepper my posts with sarcasm and jokes in order to introduce levity.
I DO think Lightborn is underpowered, however, as a perk preventing Blind is honestly underwhelming. Nothing wrong with it doing that, just wish it did something else on top of it.
If anyone is complaining about Lightborn, they're being donkeys. It doesn't slow down gens, it doesn't give intel, and it doesn't help secure kills unless a survivor is severely out of position and was somehow, for some reason, banking on a flashlight play to save them. Which is a dumb thing to do, and survivors shouldn't do that.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3358600#Comment_3358600
So Lightborn is okay where it is at then?
It's pretty niche, but if you want to use it to deny flashlights, sure. There's nothing wrong with it, save for being rather underpowered. Blowing an entire perk slot to deal with flashlights is like bombing an entire state to fire up your backyard grill. It's your perk slot, though, put whatever you want in there.
-
Let them completely unload their emotional baggage at you at the end of the game.
Then respond with "nothing personnel, kid".
Then say "*unzips katana*".
Then leave the lobby.
-
uh huh
-
It might mean that the discrepancy between the required killer to survivor ratio technically requires more survivors, but is in fact very minor. In that scenario, it means your region is actually doing REALLY WELL in the killer to survivor ratio.
-
IIRC, there was a leak that suggested much more to Slinger during the initial design phase. Such as the ability for him to pull himself to obstacles quickly by shooting them and reeling himself in. I don't think Slinger was ever intended to be another character, he just ended up similar to something else because of constraints and limitations.
-
I don't judge people for playing in SWF. That's just silly.
If someone acts like they are amazing but clearly gets carried, that's an entirely different story.
-
No.
If the killer seems to absolutely require an optional addon in order to be good, that means there is a flaw in their core design. That would be the same as saying a killer is bad unless they take a specific perk that makes them good. It's not the killer that is good, it's the added benefit filling in a serious hole in their basic design.
-
I was only made aware that DbD was getting a new killer yesterday. So I came in with NO expectations, no teasers, nothing at all.
I'm still disappointed.
She's some rich chick that likes anime (or so I'm told, I don't read lore), used a bedazzler on a gas-mask, and ripped off both Predator for her weapon and Warhammer 40k with her Servo-Skulls. It is the most absurd mix of aesthetics I've seen in a while. At least Tricksters look is one whole look. This chick has like 5 going on, and they don't mix.
Her power is area denial, but does little to deny an area, is easy to counter, and just wastes a bit of time. On top of that, her power simply doesn't work with with how DbD is often played. Both the killer and survivors would have to play extremely oddly for her power to get any practical use.
This is not a matter of "Oh, killers just don't like her cuz she's not strong". It's "plenty of people don't like her because she's basically nothing." This is honestly how I felt when Nemesis came out, and I basically bullied them out of games. At least when he chased me, though, he could show off some sick whip shots. This new killer has nothing.
-
lol
lmao even
-
They should really rename this game...
Dea...
De...
Uh
Uuuhh
Dude My Butt'sTight
nailed it
-
Kill all babies.
All babies.
All.
Babies.
-
Human Centipede
Baby Geniuses
The first Suicide Squad movie.
-
As long as I win. If I don't, it's because the other side is too strong.
-
Looking it over again, I think I get what is trying to be said...
"I think the game would be improved by making Survivors stronger against Killers. The game was better back when it was launched. At that point, it was equal, and that equality was the selling point. Do people play the game to be Killers or Survivors? (I am not sure if that is an actual question or is intended to be rhetorical) Make sure the devs see this message."
-
the on the that the over the is the of or is the first TIME it to the to
Well, that was all the colored words. The cipher must be something else...
-
@FilthyLegionRevival said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3330633#Comment_3330633
I'll assume that's as easy as you're saying it is. Let's hope. :>
Any time I've had to do it, it was fairly painless. I explained the main issue, and asked them if they could see anything going on with my connection while I actively caused a disconnect with them monitoring my connection. Hopefully your ISPs customer service is as good as the ones I've had.
-
@Marik1987 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3330644#Comment_3330644
Twins can get nerfed more than they already are with the insane healing speed and CoH?
Twins actively uses Incap, though, so a nerf to the Incap Status would be a massive nerf to Twins.
The reality is that Perks shouldn't be using Incap, or, if they do, they should last a very short amount of time. It's a status that was designed to severely detriment a single target for a specific Killer, and now every Killer has access to it and spreads it more than the Killer it was designed for.
-
@FilthyLegionRevival said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3330535#Comment_3330535
Well, I play on pc, have internet with 30 megabytes of download speed and I'm in 'murica. It shouldn't be that bad since I'm in a major city. Speed isn't an issue and to @legacycolt, I did my best to clarify it was with every game that had online capabilities.
As someone that works for a telecommunication company and does construction for fiber optic networks, trust me when I say that being in a big city doesn't actually mean your internet will be better. I totally get why people would EXPECT it to be better, but the reality is actually pretty rough.
Anyways, I still recommend contacting your ISP and having them monitor your connection on their end while you run something that disconnects. They can watch the signal to see if anything shows issues on their end, and if it does, they can hopefully fix it.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3330163#Comment_3330163
That would completely invalidate all boons and permanently close the door on their concept, so no.
Also, having NOED trigger from broken bones is a really unfair idea as well.
Idea time:
SNUFFED
When a Boon or Hex is removed from a Totem, the Totem becomes Snuffed. While Snuffed, a Totem cannot have a Boon or Hex applied to it. Applying a Boon or Hex onto any Totem that is not Snuffed will remove Snuffed from Snuffed Totems.
This would, in the very least, prevent Survivors from chaining a Boon on the same Totem quickly. This would also not change how any other Hex or Boon Perks work otherwise. The wording is also deliberate so that, in the future, Killers could be able to apply a Hex to a totem and the mechanic would be designed to account for that. It could, in theory, account for Survivors getting the ability to remove a Hex without destroying a Totem, should the devs ever implement that for whatever reason.
-
We would need to know which platform you are on, the kind of internet you have, your country, etc. How good ones internet is and the issues that it has can stem from multiple sources. A complete picture would make it easier to figure out.
Right off the bat, however, I will say that some ISPs throttle the amount of requests that they get, which can cause the App doing the requests to not function properly or for the internet itself to shut off. Satellite internet is particularly known for this.
Through wired internet (cable, copper, or fiber), it could still (in theory) be a throttle that the company has in place based on your level of service/plan, or a restriction brought on by how they route the signal to your residence.
If you are using a router and not going directly through the modem, that could be an issue. The modem itself could be an issue as well.
Something you MIGHT be able to do is contact your ISPs service desk and report an issue. From there, give them your info and have them actively monitor your connection from their end. Run an App that causes disconnects and let them look at how the connection behaves. In the very least, they should be able to tell you if it is something on their end or yours. From there, you can start sorting out where the problem actually lies.
-
They're onto us...
-
If you wanted actual answers, you'd have to completely redo the original post to sound more inviting to suggestions. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
-
Nope.
Especially with the planned changes to Moris, I would not. If that goes through, then you would barely ever see them and be paying for something you only get to enjoy once in a blue moon, or you'd have to completely alter your playstyle to see it.
Without the Mori changes, I'd still say no, though I'd get a bit pissy if the Mori animations were made shorter and more advantageous to use. Paying to get shorter animations that technically gave an advantage to those that paid for it would be a huge bummer. If they could be earned through in-game methods and not just through opening ones wallet, though, I'd be a BIT nicer about it, though paying to get any kind of gameplay bonus is still a no-go. And ya, I know that licensed characters have that issue with perks. I'm not a fan of that.