245_Trioxin
245_Trioxin
About
- Username
- 245_Trioxin
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,303
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Giche said:
@245_Trioxin said:
You just moved the goalposts. SWF duos are not bad and you know it. Prove to me that those dastardly, toxic, horrifying SWF duos are just ruining all of your matches.I dismantled your argument, and you're doubling-down on it. It's because the actual data destroys your narrative.
Where did i mentionned 4 man SWF in this exact thread ?
You are just grasping strawman wherever you can find them.
Also by the data you bringed, 3 man SWF are the most numerous of all type of SWF.
No need to mention the 2 teams of duo SWF.
You can nitpick things all you want, doesn't change the fact that SWF always bring an unfair advantage, that survivors in general love to abuse.
Pretty sure that there's even more than 70% of SWF players right now.
I wonder why.
And even when goofing around with your buddies, you have an unfair advantage over the killer.
It's called telepathy, and if you all can't recognize it, you're all a lost cause.
What respectable gamer would keep his unfair advantage over his opponent untouched for that long ?
Even worse, defending it at ALL COST ?None, period.
You didn't, but @Mycroft did. So, the argument still stands. I'm not building a strawman. I burned down the one that many killer mains (including you) fall back on, which is the 70% myth.
> Also by the data you bringed, 3 man SWF are the most numerous of all type of SWF.
What?? You obviously don't know how to read data. 17.9% is not the highest number listed. 34.1% is, which is 2-team/2-solo.
Want to shoot yourself in the foot again? Now your argument has even less merit, because you can't even parse this information correctly.
Pretty sure that there's even more than 70% of SWF players right now.
Groan...so now that the data doesn't fit your narrative it's old and out of date. That's not a good look.
It's called telepathy, and if you all can't recognize it, you're all a lost cause.
No, it's not. It's just called communication, let's not make it supernatural now. The last time I played in an SWF duo with a friend, you know what we discussed during the match? Summerslam. Yep, the killer was bested by two guys talking about pro wrestling while holding down a button and hitting skill checks.
Did we mention things to each other regarding the killer? Yeah, from time to time, but most of the time, we were paying far less attention than had we been playing solo. I find I do better solo than in SWF. The chances of me surviving the match go up.
Are there issues with SWF? Yes. I'll admit that. But, crying about that doesn't do any good. I could go back through the Steam forums and pull up comments I made before it was introduced. I said from day one that it needed to be a separate mode that allows for bloodpoint accumulation, but is unranked. I stand by that statement over two years later.
Ranked should be reworked, not reset monthly, and have proper tiers. It should also be solo-only. SWF should be a casual mode where you can have fun, grind bloodpoints, and experiment with new builds before taking them into ranked.
But, that's not going to happen. So, we need to allow the devs time to try and balance this whole mess out. I can guarantee that, if that data is still accurate, they will balance solo and SWF based on 2-team/2-solo, and then buff killers accordingly.
-
@Mycroft said:
So let me see if I understand this. Just because every SWF squad isn't top tier SWF isn't an issue? When one can clearly point to the fact the advantage SWF gives alone is the problem. In a game that's already 4 vs 1 the 4 already having a numbers advantage plus the fact Discord gives you the benefit of multiple perks isn't an issue?All the while the lone killer having to deal with this gets all the crap for being tactical.
Again, no. Nobody is saying that. Toxic players are just that. Report them and move on. If someone is being a jerk to you post-match, it's not cool, and I will not defend that type of behavior. I will 100% stand with you against it.
But stop conflating it to "all survivors" or "all killers", because it's factually inaccurate to make assumptions like that. You have to see that. Please tell me you see how dishonest that is. It doesn't help the situation, it makes it worse.
The 70% myth is false. I have already proved this, and 4-man squads are the basis for every argument I have seen against SWF. I have never seen anyone cry over a two-man squad and two solo survivors. It doesn't happen.
But now it has to, because you can't use the blanket 70%, as it's intellectually dishonest. So you're doubling-down and changing the argument.
The narrative is broken. These arguments are not going to be taken seriously anymore. SWF is not nearly the problem that it has been made out to be. Toxic players, on both sides, are the issue.
The devs will balance the rest of it out, based on the actual data, which means they'll balance around the "2-team, 2-solo" form of SWF, as that's the most commonly played. They won't balance around 4-man SWF.
Once that's done, then they'll have a much easier time balancing the killers against that type of survivor group.
-
@Vietfox said:
245_Trioxin said:@Giche said:
@245_Trioxin said:
Prove it. Back your statements up.
Prove that it is misinformation. Prove that I am being intellectually dishonest.
Numerous feedback since 2 years, my experiences, the dev's stat stating, one year ago ,that 70% of killer's lobby were filled with SWF teams. But, wait.... Why should i look for all this game's archive just to make a point to someone who clearly can't see it due to his bias ? I wonder... what would restrain me from also asking you proof to your counter statement ?
Oh yeah, i don't like toxic arguments.
the dev's stat stating, one year ago ,that 70% of killer's lobby were filled with SWF teams.
I have been waiting for one of you to bring this little factoid up again. I see killer mains constantly try to use this as an argument, but all you need to do is a quick Google search and that argument gets deflated really quick.
That comes from the 5 October 2017 dev stream, in case anyone wants to check it out for themselves.
Let's look at where that 70% came from. The devs released some stats regarding survivor group distribution. Here is what they actually stated were the groups by percentage:
* 4 solo: 30%
* 2 friends + 2 solo: 34.1%
* 2 friends + 2 friends: 9.5%
* 3 friends + 1 solo: 17.9%
* 4 friends: 8.5%
So, the way the "70% myth" came to be is based on adding everything up outside of four solo players.If we really look at the data, we can see that 64.1% of matches have, at the most, two people communicating.
In fact the only point at which it becomes possibly too much communication across the team would be at 3 friends. Include 4-man teams and that equals out to 26.4%, or between 2-3 matches out of 10.
4-man SWF teams make up less than 1 in 10 matches!
Add to that, the fact that most of those 4-man SWF groups aren't Marth88-level de-pip sweaty squads, and you're probably looking at 1 in every 100 matches or so. Which is why I said it's a very small percentage.
Stop parroting talking points and research the actual data.
I know you said you try to avoid "General discussions" and i can see why, but it would be nice if you created a thread about this data. People who still think that 70% of the matches are against top tier 4 swf squad need to know.
It's readily available data, and it's information that should be shared. Feel free to post it in a thread.
-
@Master said:
245_Trioxin said:@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Giche said:
@245_Trioxin said:
But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
This is an incredibly small percentage of SWF players. You can stop now, your arguments have lost all merit.
Said who ?
Everyone who played killer more than 30 hours know that you're lying, or ignorant.
Or both.
And your wall of text isn't really telling anything, it's like you want the reader to be confused.
InB4 : "Lul that's because youre too stupid to understand it :DDD"
Says actual data. If it was that big of a problem, it would absolutely be on the devs radar, and they would do something about it. If it was actually ruining that may matches and destroying killers across the globe, they would have to fix it.
What of my "wall of text" is confusing? Please elaborate.
By the way, that's not a wall of text. Paragraphs are separated and punctuation is used. It's actually a pretty easy read.
I don't stoop to your level of insults. I encourage debate, and I will listen if you can bring me proper arguments. That's where @Mycroft failed. He didn't bring valid arguments.
Here's a valid argument. A killer has the right to secure a kill in a game where securing a kill is an objective or part of the objective.
Period, point blank. Full stop. Not my concern if the opposition doesn't like it. If they don't like it they play Civ 5.
I agree with you. I'm not arguing against camping. I found your initial comparison to be weak, so I replied.
All I am saying is that people have the right to question it, because it's not a good strategy. Then you went into "all survivors" talk, and that's a strawman, so I called it out.
Generalizations don't work, ever. They just make arguments weak.
I call it a good strategy if it can deliver 4k because of stupid survivors.
All you gotta do Iß to estimate the stupidity and act accordingly.
The ability to adjust your tactics on the fly is what makes you a good killerThere are moments when it's the killer's best option, and I won't try to take that from anyone. But, I also believe in open dialogue and can understand why people will complain about it or question it's viability.
-
@Giche said:
@245_TrioxinWho talked about 4 man SWF specificaly ?
That case is only the cream of the crop cancerous wise.
I talked about SWF in general.
So 1 year ago, there were already 70% killer's lobby filled with SWF (regardless of the number, from 2 to 4, it's only a little less cancerous with the first case)
I wonder how much this number have changed since last year, knowing the recent events.
You just moved the goalposts. SWF duos are not bad and you know it. Prove to me that those dastardly, toxic, horrifying SWF duos are just ruining all of your matches.
I dismantled your argument, and you're doubling-down on it. It's because the actual data destroys your narrative.
-
@Mycroft said:
There is no argument. If I want to secure a kill I will. I don't care about your sensitivities or your self esteem. Play the game. And stop crying cause your opponent capitalizes off your mistakes.Once again, I have done none of these things. Who is crying here? Your arguments were crap. I called you out, along with other people, and you got defensive.
People can question things. Why does it bother you so much?
-
@Giche said:
@245_Trioxin said:
Prove it. Back your statements up.Prove that it is misinformation. Prove that I am being intellectually dishonest.
Numerous feedback since 2 years, my experiences, the dev's stat stating, one year ago ,that 70% of killer's lobby were filled with SWF teams.
But, wait....
Why should i look for all this game's archive just to make a point to someone who clearly can't see it due to his bias ?
I wonder... what would restrain me from also asking you proof to your counter statement ?
Oh yeah, i don't like toxic arguments.
the dev's stat stating, one year ago ,that 70% of killer's lobby were filled with SWF teams.
I have been waiting for one of you to bring this little factoid up again. I see killer mains constantly try to use this as an argument, but all you need to do is a quick Google search and that argument gets deflated really quick.
That comes from the 5 October 2017 dev stream, in case anyone wants to check it out for themselves.
Let's look at where that 70% came from. The devs released some stats regarding survivor group distribution. Here is what they actually stated were the groups by percentage:
- 4 solo: 30%
- 2 friends + 2 solo: 34.1%
- 2 friends + 2 friends: 9.5%
- 3 friends + 1 solo: 17.9%
- 4 friends: 8.5%
So, the way the "70% myth" came to be is based on adding everything up outside of four solo players.
If we really look at the data, we can see that 64.1% of matches have, at the most, two people communicating.
In fact the only point at which it becomes possibly too much communication across the team would be at 3 friends. Include 4-man teams and that equals out to 26.4%, or between 2-3 matches out of 10.
4-man SWF teams make up less than 1 in 10 matches!
Add to that, the fact that most of those 4-man SWF groups aren't Marth88-level de-pip sweaty squads, and you're probably looking at 1 in every 100 matches or so. Which is why I said it's a very small percentage.
Stop parroting talking points and research the actual data.
-
@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
I try to stay off the hook, I tend to play stealth builds, and if a killer is camping, I do gens. It doesn't affect me personally.
Good for you. You're learning. Grab a cookie on the way out.
I've been doing this for two years. I didn't just learn.
And just like everyone else who can't back up their arguments, you make a snide remark.
GG
-
@Mycroft said:
So now we come full circle. "Camping is legit. But that doesn't mean i have to like it."Here's more validity for you. Too bad. Stay off the hook.
Again, none of this is what I argued. I try to stay off the hook, I tend to play stealth builds, and if a killer is camping, I do gens. It doesn't affect me personally. It also doesn't mean that you get to shut down people who question it as a good tactic. Full stop.
It doesn't change the fact that your arguments are garbage, and building up strawmen like "all survivors..." is useless also, because it can be easily destroyed.
-
@Giche said:
@Vietfox said:
You said a few days ago you come to the foruns to fight toxicity, and now i see you calling ignorant to a person who is sharing his point of view, respectfully and with good arguments.
Sorry to say that but you are the toxic one here."Ignorant" isn't an insult, i start with the principle that i'm talking to adult peoples, as this is a mature rated game.
Also i writed "Lying OR ignorant".
What he said is basically not true, this is basically misinformation, and intellectually dishonest.
I call him for it, you take it as an insult all you want, for what i care.
Prove it. Back your statements up.
Prove that it is misinformation. Prove that I am being intellectually dishonest.
-
@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Giche said:
@245_Trioxin said:But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
This is an incredibly small percentage of SWF players. You can stop now, your arguments have lost all merit.
Said who ?
Everyone who played killer more than 30 hours know that you're lying, or ignorant.
Or both.
And your wall of text isn't really telling anything, it's like you want the reader to be confused.
InB4 : "Lul that's because youre too stupid to understand it :DDD"
Says actual data. If it was that big of a problem, it would absolutely be on the devs radar, and they would do something about it. If it was actually ruining that may matches and destroying killers across the globe, they would have to fix it.
What of my "wall of text" is confusing? Please elaborate.
By the way, that's not a wall of text. Paragraphs are separated and punctuation is used. It's actually a pretty easy read.
I don't stoop to your level of insults. I encourage debate, and I will listen if you can bring me proper arguments. That's where @Mycroft failed. He didn't bring valid arguments.
Here's a valid argument. A killer has the right to secure a kill in a game where securing a kill is an objective or part of the objective.
Period, point blank. Full stop. Not my concern if the opposition doesn't like it. If they don't like it they play Civ 5.
I agree with you. I'm not arguing against camping. I found your initial comparison to be weak, so I replied.
All I am saying is that people have the right to question it, because it's not a good strategy. Then you went into "all survivors" talk, and that's a strawman, so I called it out.
Generalizations don't work, ever. They just make arguments weak.
-
@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
Some survivors and some killers are toxic and drag the community down.
There's the only statement that should be made in regards to the community.
Really?
I call survivors who go outside the game spewing racism and sexism and threats toxic. I couldn't care less what they do in game.
Survivors call anything that isn't personally escorting them to victory IN the game "scuummy" or "douchebag"
Let me get this straight...
Killing a survivor in a game with killers and survivors in a particular way is bad. lol I have to KILL them the way they want me to. Survivors have crafted an entire book of unwritten rules over the years that is renown. "The 4%" "You tunneled me" "You slugged me" "You camped me" etc. Yeah sure, buddy.
But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
I made zero of those arguments. Keep trying.
The statements I made, if we need to generalize them instead of actually reading them are as follows:
- Your arguments suck.
- You need to stop generalizing.
- Killers are just as bad.
- It's neither of the groups, as a whole, it's some parties inside of those groups.
But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
This is an incredibly small percentage of SWF players. You can stop now, your arguments have lost all merit.
No one appointed you judge of all arguments here. lol
Not my fault the cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias you so firmly in a state of denial you don't entertain the fallacy of the things you say.
I only go by personal experience. Sitting there going #NotAllSurvivors is about as asinine as yelling Not All Men
You can't go by personal experience, because it's a limited data set. It doesn't matter if anybody appointed me it, I'll do it because it needs to be done.
Facts before feelings. Bring better arguments.
Sitting there going #NotAllSurvivors is about as asinine as yelling Not All Men
Neither of them is asinine, unless you are pushing an agenda and ideology. At least now I know why your arguments are garbage. You drank the Kool Aid.
Edited for typos.
-
@Giche said:
@245_Trioxin said:But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
This is an incredibly small percentage of SWF players. You can stop now, your arguments have lost all merit.
Said who ?
Everyone who played killer more than 30 hours know that you're lying, or ignorant.
Or both.
And your wall of text isn't really telling anything, it's like you want the reader to be confused.
InB4 : "Lul that's because youre too stupid to understand it :DDD"
Says actual data. If it was that big of a problem, it would absolutely be on the devs radar, and they would do something about it. If it was actually ruining that may matches and destroying killers across the globe, they would have to fix it.
What of my "wall of text" is confusing? Please elaborate.
By the way, that's not a wall of text. Paragraphs are separated and punctuation is used. It's actually a pretty easy read.
I don't stoop to your level of insults. I encourage debate, and I will listen if you can bring me proper arguments. That's where @Mycroft failed. He didn't bring valid arguments.
-
@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
Some survivors and some killers are toxic and drag the community down.
There's the only statement that should be made in regards to the community.
Really?
I call survivors who go outside the game spewing racism and sexism and threats toxic. I couldn't care less what they do in game.
Survivors call anything that isn't personally escorting them to victory IN the game "scuummy" or "douchebag"
Let me get this straight...
Killing a survivor in a game with killers and survivors in a particular way is bad. lol I have to KILL them the way they want me to. Survivors have crafted an entire book of unwritten rules over the years that is renown. "The 4%" "You tunneled me" "You slugged me" "You camped me" etc. Yeah sure, buddy.
But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
I made zero of those arguments. Keep trying.
The statements I made, if we need to generalize them instead of actually reading them are as follows:
- Your arguments suck.
- You need to stop generalizing.
- Killers are just as bad.
- It's neither of the groups, as a whole, it's some parties inside of those groups.
But it's fine when a team of sweat lords team up in Cheat With Friends and stack offerings and coordinate. Yeah, sure.
This is an incredibly small percentage of SWF players. You can stop now, your arguments have lost all merit.
-
@Mycroft said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Mycroft said:
@powerbats said:
@Mycroft said:
@Token_420 said:
Hi I’m fairly new to this gameExactly.
That's the problem with this game. Survivor mains act like killers are there to shine your shoes and be amusement park rides. "Killers are trying to kill me" Wow, what a novel concept. Do you complain when you get shot in Fortnite?
You mean like some killer mains that whine about anything and everything because gasp the survivors are only doing what they're supposed to do. Which is to ESCAPE !!!!!!
They dropped a pallet on me, complain.
They shined a flashlight in my eyes, complain.
They unhooked someone, complain.
They dared to escape, complain.
They even dared gasp to do gens as quickly as possible to escape, complain.Now if you're like some on here let me be really clear.
MOST OF THIS POST IS COMPLETELY SARCASTIC while also being factually true.
Don't let me get in the way of the 99 strawmen you just beat up.
"Killers complain about survivors trying to do what we're supposed to do."
No. You are supposed to try to survive. I'm supposed to try to stop that. You see the survivors can't drive in their lane with this game. Not only are they not doing their job, they fail miserably then try to dictate to the opposition what they are supposed to do. Funny how that works.
Like I said earlier, crying about camping is like crying about a:
Basketball/hockey player scoring a goal.
A football player scoring a touchdown.
A baseball player scoring a run.
A killer has the right to play defense. Full stop. End of discussion.
This comparison doesn't work. Hooking a survivor is exactly like scoring a goal. Camping is then holding the ball or puck until the end of the period before starting again.
Both your score and the hooked survivor's score is taking a major hit.
You're right, the killer does have the right to "play defense". Just like the survivors have the right to question poor tactics.
If it's a poor tactic then punish it. That's the point of the game. It's what the devs said back in 2016. Do generators. But no, survivors want free unhooks so they always rush in and pay the price.
No "camping killer" should ever win. Foolishly doing it is throwing the match. It takes two minutes to sacrifice. The remaining survivors can all finish one generator and be well into another if a killer just stood there for two whole minutes.
I do punish it. I'm also not complaining. I'm arguing that it's a terrible tactic in most cases and people have a right to question it. It's that simple.
I don't do well with poor arguments and generalizations. This is why I responded to you, because you checked both of those boxes. Your comparison was terrible, and you keep stating things like "But no, survivors want free unhooks so they always rush in and pay the price." which is a generalization and just makes your argument even weaker.
-
@Mycroft said:
@powerbats said:
@Mycroft said:
@powerbats said:
@Mycroft said:
@Token_420 said:
Hi I’m fairly new to this gameExactly.
That's the problem with this game. Survivor mains act like killers are there to shine your shoes and be amusement park rides. "Killers are trying to kill me" Wow, what a novel concept. Do you complain when you get shot in Fortnite?
You mean like some killer mains that whine about anything and everything because gasp the survivors are only doing what they're supposed to do. Which is to ESCAPE !!!!!!
They dropped a pallet on me, complain.
They shined a flashlight in my eyes, complain.
They unhooked someone, complain.
They dared to escape, complain.
They even dared gasp to do gens as quickly as possible to escape, complain.Now if you're like some on here let me be really clear.
MOST OF THIS POST IS COMPLETELY SARCASTIC while also being factually true.
Don't let me get in the way of the 99 strawmen you just beat up.
"Killers complain about survivors trying to do what we're supposed to do."
No. You are supposed to try to survive. I'm supposed to try to stop that. You see the survivors can't drive in their lane with this game. Not only are they not doing their job, they fail miserably then try to dictate to the opposition what they are supposed to do. Funny how that works.
Like I said earlier, crying about camping is like crying about a:
Basketball/hockey player scoring a goal.
A football player scoring a touchdown.
A baseball player scoring a run.
A killer has the right to play defense. Full stop. End of discussion.
Speaking about Straw Men which is exactly what you did here and also ignored the intense sarcasm warning because it didn't fit your narrative and in fact countered it.
The survivors are supposed to try and escape, that means if they have to loop which is a legitimate strategy they can and will do it. You're just upset that players new to the game are getting wrecked by experienced killers and acting like they're good. The newer players to the game need help and be taught how to play the game properly and with respect.
You know like no0t to sit there and tea bagt the killer at pallets and or exit gates. To be respectful post game to the killer if they played fairly and won. But to you it's hey lets be an asshat because that how killers are supposed to act. When playing killer you're supposed to kill the survivors, not be an asshat during the game and post game.
Your posts show us which type of killer you are and why there's so many toxic survivors bullying killer in game. So everytime a survivor bullies you all you have to do is look in the mirror to see why they're toxic.
Please. I don't get bullied in the least. And I don't recall saying anything about looping. I'm stating a universal truth. Survivor mains want this game to be easy for them, no difficulty. They are entitled and view killers as AI rodeo clowns with no agency. New players have their place now, no longer an excuse.
You're literally telling me survivors are right to play a video game knowing the stipulations involved, losing then going beyond the game and being toxic and immature. For some reason the point flies over the heads of everyone involved in this game. If survivors are supposed to try to survive then what the hell are the killers supposed to try to do?
That's the problem with this game. Survivors have the depth of a Papa John's pizza. Like cardboard. "I'm gonna loop." and the second they face a Nurse who eats that crap for dinner they come to the forums "NERF NURSE REEEEEEEEE"
Everything about this "universal truth" is false. You've built your strawman and set it ablaze in the first paragraph. Stop generalizing. As both a killer and survivor I, and many others, will GG at the end of the match.
I lose with all four escaping, I get GGs. I get a 4k, I get GGs. Why? Because I don't play like a douchebag.
When I play survivor, I don't teabag, I don't run flashlights at all, and I tend to play stealth builds. I can guarantee I am not the only player like this.
My point here is that you need to stop pushing this on everyone, when in reality it's a small percentage of the community, and it exists on both sides.
Also, I almost never see people asking for Nurse to be nerfed. That's a really rare complaint.
So, I just, very recently (like this week) started playing on PC again. The last time I had played on PC was two years ago. I've been playing on the PS4 for most of the life of the game. That said, I obviously started at rank 20 for both killer and survivor.
I go into a solo survivor match, rank 20, level 1 David because I need to start unlocking perks and We're Gonna Live Forever helps. Many of the killers I ran into were running full tier 3 builds with teachables from multiple killers. Why? Why are they at rank 19-20? It's because they want easy matches, and are possibly going so far as to cheat to ensure it.
I see the same thing when I have played as a killer. Rank 19 survivor with full tier 3 meta build.
It's not about survivors, or killers, it's just ######### in the community as a whole. So stop blaming one side.
Some survivors and some killers are toxic and drag the community down.
There's the only statement that should be made in regards to the community.
-
@Mycroft said:
@powerbats said:
@Mycroft said:
@Token_420 said:
Hi I’m fairly new to this gameExactly.
That's the problem with this game. Survivor mains act like killers are there to shine your shoes and be amusement park rides. "Killers are trying to kill me" Wow, what a novel concept. Do you complain when you get shot in Fortnite?
You mean like some killer mains that whine about anything and everything because gasp the survivors are only doing what they're supposed to do. Which is to ESCAPE !!!!!!
They dropped a pallet on me, complain.
They shined a flashlight in my eyes, complain.
They unhooked someone, complain.
They dared to escape, complain.
They even dared gasp to do gens as quickly as possible to escape, complain.Now if you're like some on here let me be really clear.
MOST OF THIS POST IS COMPLETELY SARCASTIC while also being factually true.
Don't let me get in the way of the 99 strawmen you just beat up.
"Killers complain about survivors trying to do what we're supposed to do."
No. You are supposed to try to survive. I'm supposed to try to stop that. You see the survivors can't drive in their lane with this game. Not only are they not doing their job, they fail miserably then try to dictate to the opposition what they are supposed to do. Funny how that works.
Like I said earlier, crying about camping is like crying about a:
Basketball/hockey player scoring a goal.
A football player scoring a touchdown.
A baseball player scoring a run.
A killer has the right to play defense. Full stop. End of discussion.
This comparison doesn't work. Hooking a survivor is exactly like scoring a goal. Camping is then holding the ball or puck until the end of the period before starting again.
Both your score and the hooked survivor's score is taking a major hit.
You're right, the killer does have the right to "play defense". Just like the survivors have the right to question poor tactics.
-
Never say never.Usui said:@245_Trioxin said:
I would be incredibly happy if they never released another licensed killer. They're unnecessary and take money away from the devs that could be put towards making the game better (e.g. dedicated servers).Dedicated servers are never going to happen
Besides, that was just an example. I don't care what it is for, but keep the money in the company instead of having to share profits out with license holders.
There's a lot of resources being spent just for some famous horror icons. That's money, time, and labor that could go into making the game better in lots of ways.
I'm really hoping that the removal of Starbreeze from the picture means the end of licensed killers in the future. They're a waste of company resources, and every licensed killer that's been added to the game has been diminished to an irrelevant joke, in my opinion.
They're not the scary iconic horror legends they once were. They're just annoying now. Well, except for Freddy. They got him right. Remake Freddy made about the same impact on screen that he makes in the game. Low tier across the board.
-
@Master said:
@noname1 said:
The new killer is disgusting.DBD described the victim of parricide as sexy. It is now 2018.DBD should have avoided sexual objectification of the victims. I am now very disappointed with the game DBD and angry at the crew for creating characters for these lazy and violent settings.
In fact, many women are killed by their fathers and brothers, and I don't understand how they created this character. The trailer showed users that the woman kept screaming very long time. and the character's terrible description of the murder was unnecessarily detailed.
There are already many words that judge the body and face of the new killer. Is it the intention of the horror game DBD to allow people to observe and evaluate the naked body of a murdered woman?
It's a totally incomprehensible setting to give the murdered female victim the naked body and the Bouncing Breast in the story.Dont assume its gender.
Devs actually hint that the new killer is transgender:
Oh good lord, would you look at that...BHVR isn't using her preferred pronouns! For shame.
OP might have to get her little FB group back together for a new line of attack.
On a side note, I think that's more than likely just a typo because of the template they use for perk and item descriptions. It'll probably get fixed in the actual update.
-
Don't worry. It's just another Korean radical feminist crying about the "objectification" of cartoon ghosts.Twix said:
Honestly, I didn’t even read past the first sentence...ProfoundEnding said:Please use smaller words. -
@Luven said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Luven said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
It's only sexual if you make it sexual. I don't see any sexual objectification because I think with the head on my shoulders and not the one in my pants. Oh and you don't mind the idea of killing people and yet as soon as some skin shows you magically have a problem? I guess your priorities are in need of a checkup. Also why didn't you have a problem with shirtless David? Isn't that sexual objectification based on your terms? Such hypocrisy.Have you read my post? I said there were people who said she was sexy. It's a problem in itself that there are people like that. Just because you don't see it like that doesn't mean no matter with it.
I read your post and yet I see no issue. And who cares if they find her sexy? What's it to you any way? It's their opinion and their minds. Why should the developers listen to you just because you have an issue with something that is subjective in nature? Also is it a problem if I find a girl on the beach sexy? What do you want me to do? Just throw out my sexuality? Or are you gonna just try and censor that girl like she's a forbidden fruit? Just because you see it as a problem doesn't it is a problem.
Btw you didn't answer my question as to why you didn't have a problem with shirtless David yet.
No, you didn't read my post properly. If you read it correctly, you wouldn't ask a question about David. And is it a problem to look sexy on the beach? Of course. I think you're the one who doesn't think it's a problem. Do you really think it's not a problem to see her sexy with a dead body? Just because opinions and minds are freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything. And I'm not forcing you to change as I said. They need to figure out the problem with this character. The problem is that they don't realize it.
So what is this problem? That people think that a character in a video game is sexy? Over the years of gaming there has been countless titles that have had 'sexy' undead characters and no one had an issue with those. Like I think the skin exposure on the Spirit actually adds to the creepiness. Seeing skin that's blue is unnerving. Like I don't think it's an issue for people to find a game character sexy. And what about the people that find Huntress sexy even though she's a demented killer? So just because she's not undead it's ok? I just honestly think this 'problem' that you're trying to dig up is nothing more than a personal problem if anything.
Please, I've never played such a game and I'm just pointing out that the game I've been playing has that problem. I would point it out again if it was another game I was playing. And I've always thought there was a problem with sexy undead. When they gave her sexiness, I wouldn't say anything if they gave breast bouncing to male character who has big breast. Blue skin is not a problem. The problem is she looks like a corpse and gives her sexiness. And many articles already say she's sexy. Huntress doesn't look like a corpse, and Huntress doesn't wear only a few bandages like her. It's not a problem to tell her she's sexy. There are already quite a few comments about her problems that I have written about, to say my opinion is personal.
So. In other words. This is a personal problem for you to deal with. Gotcha.
What are you saying, you really don't understand my post. If it means so, the translation would be wrong. I never said I was personal. I'm surprised when you talk to me, your understanding is so bad. It's not a personal matter already. You just didn't intend to discuss this. Honestly, this isn't going to take you seriously at all.
Allow me to explain.
Nobody cares about your personal moral dilemma.
Nobody cares if you play the game or not.At the end of the day, the majority of DbD players are not objectifying the new killer. But, your little group of extremists are.
You are the sexist here, nobody else.
Please stop trying to inject your ideology into the game. Just run on back to Tumblr.
Well, if you've looked at this Forum properly, you know I'm not the only one to discuss it. And I'm a sexist? I'm talking about gender equality, you're the sexist. You're right that you didn't really understand my post. And yes, no one would care about me quitting. But what I want to talk about through this is that it's a serious problem that makes a user stop playing games. I don't want them to be interested in me quitting. And I don't do Tumblr.
Yes, you are sexist. You (and your little group of extremists on here) are looking at this character strictly through the lens of sex. Nobody else is doing that. Which is the problem with feminism, intersectionality, and identity politics as a whole.
You think you are fighting for equality, when you are actually trying to gain power and influence. You try to fight racism and sexism at every turn, because everything you see is racist or sexist. This is because you are focused on seeing things based on race or sex, making you both racist and sexist.
What you are following is an ideology. A religion that replaces God with women. That cites intersectionality as it's ten commandments, and decries the "Patriarchy" as it's Devil.
You need to take a look at what you are spouting with a critical eye and realize that you are just a set of talking points with no critical thought behind them. You have become the mouth piece for racism and sexism.
Am I seeing her sexually? I asked you repeatedly if you read my post correctly. This is problematic because there was someone who called her sexy. And I've seen them all over the place. You're rather sexist because you don't recognize it. Not me. If you took this matter seriously, you wouldn't have been sexist. Look at the world. You're falling behind.
That's not what sexism means. If you are going to try and use words, at least learn the definitions.
Sexism is when you create opinions on things based purely on sex. Racism is when you create opinions on things purely on race.
It would be sexist to think that someone is worthless because they are a man or a woman. It is also sexist to believe that someone should be given favoritism simply because they are a man or a woman. Which is what you are doing. You are weighing the need for changes to be made to the Spirit simply because she looks female. Therefore, you are a sexist.
Let me put it another way, to hit the point home. You feel you need to protect women from "oppression" and "objectification" because they are weak and cannot protect themselves. If you thought that women are empowered, independent, and equal to men, then you wouldn't feel the need to go to the lengths that you do. So, again, you are a sexist.
Women don't need protection, because they are already strong and independent. Cartoon women don't need protection because they are fictional.
This isn't rocket science. It's pretty simple. Judge people based on their individual merits and don't play favorites.
I'm not a sexist. I judge people based on their individual personalities and merits. I'll tell you right now that I am not judging you based on whether you are male or female, but I am judging you because you have no ability to think for yourself and just parrot the same neo-marxist, pro-communist talking points that all "progressives" do.
Feminism isn't about equality. It's about control. You may want to read up on egalitarianism if you want to find a belief in equality.
-
@snozer said:
@Zanfer said:
@Twix said:
Wonderful idea as long as your positioning isn't given away to the killer. Sure, don't let Survivors escape when someone is hooked, but don't give me up if I'm hiding near the exit.The position wouldn't be given away, as long as the survivor is on the hook the bloodwarden effect would stay up
so a quick save or use of a perk to jump off and everyone escapes scot free. still a tiny bit better then nothing.
A killer could use it to snowball the match in their favor at end game. If they can catch a second person and hook them, that BW effect will stay active even if the first person is unhooked. There's no time limit in this version. So long as someone is hooked, nobody can leave.
-
Agreed. I think it's a wonderful idea for endgame, for both killers and survivors. It'll force survivors to prioritize leaving the match, which will mitigate matches being held hostage, and will also entice the killer to step away from the final hook, as they'll be able to hook someone else and prolong the BW effect.
It could make for some really clutch plays on both sides.
-
Which is exactly how it should have been. It would have promoted more team variety and interesting builds for each role. BHVR would have more freedom in releasing new generic perks, as well.Peasant said:The teachables create the following classes:
Dwight - Leader
Gathers allies and boosts speed.
Benefits from allied support.
Meg - Looper
Can bring killer to loops better than most. Can juke with Quick and Quiet to end chases.
Claudette - General Medic
Excells at keeping everyone alive, including herself.
Jake - Roaming Support
Can travel around undetected, can turn dead zones into safe zones with Saboteur.
Nea - Rogue
Stealthy, nimble, and good with loot.
David.K - Beserker
High risk, but high reward.
Laurie - Scout/Lookout
Can spot the Killers' auras while also being exposed due to this ability.
Feng - Isolationist
Great at working alone and fairly self-sufficient.
Will need healers at some point.
Ace - Bard
Buffs his team while making himself a target.
Quentin - Standard Support
Can help a clustered group endure debuffs and escape, while also making a decent healer.
Kate - Juker
Excells at locating LOS blockers and wasting the Killers' time in a chase.
David.T - Objective Coordinator
Excells at locating objectives and obstacles. Can pull through some tough events.
Bill - Tactician
Weak in general, but very powerful against certain events (camping, slugging, bad team.) -
Based on the release schedule, and what the devs have mentioned, Freddy should be getting his rework during the next mid-chapter patch if all goes well. So, probably right in the ballpark of Halloween.
-
@Luven said:
@mcNuggets said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
It's only sexual if you make it sexual. I don't see any sexual objectification because I think with the head on my shoulders and not the one in my pants. Oh and you don't mind the idea of killing people and yet as soon as some skin shows you magically have a problem? I guess your priorities are in need of a checkup. Also why didn't you have a problem with shirtless David? Isn't that sexual objectification based on your terms? Such hypocrisy.Have you read my post? I said there were people who said she was sexy. It's a problem in itself that there are people like that. Just because you don't see it like that doesn't mean no matter with it.
I read your post and yet I see no issue. And who cares if they find her sexy? What's it to you any way? It's their opinion and their minds. Why should the developers listen to you just because you have an issue with something that is subjective in nature? Also is it a problem if I find a girl on the beach sexy? What do you want me to do? Just throw out my sexuality? Or are you gonna just try and censor that girl like she's a forbidden fruit? Just because you see it as a problem doesn't it is a problem.
Btw you didn't answer my question as to why you didn't have a problem with shirtless David yet.
No, you didn't read my post properly. If you read it correctly, you wouldn't ask a question about David. And is it a problem to look sexy on the beach? Of course. I think you're the one who doesn't think it's a problem. Do you really think it's not a problem to see her sexy with a dead body? Just because opinions and minds are freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything. And I'm not forcing you to change as I said. They need to figure out the problem with this character. The problem is that they don't realize it.
######### are you saying.
Should we wear burqas on the beach, or what? Sounds like a religion, haha.I don't feel anything for the spirit, maybe because I am not into women that much, I can't vouch for everyone else.
What are you talking about? Do you think women dress that way to make them look good to you? They want to wear it that way. Not because I want to be your eye food. I can't believe what you said. Do women have to dress that way on the beach because of your eyes? You're not interested in women and you talk so easily. Don't go anywhere and say such a shocking thing, it's awful. There's no guarantee that you don't feel anything about spirit, even for others. I've already seen a bunch of guys who say she's sexy.
Your moral policing is getting boring.
Why do you care if someone says that a cartoon character is sexy? Hell, why do you care if anyone finds anyone sexy?
You do not have the right to silence other people's opinions because you find them to be wrongthink.
Again, this is a fictional character in a video game that you are crying over. You need to recheck your priorities.
-
I'm slightly confused by the use of Overwatch characters and terminology here, but I think I get the jist of it.
I have always been against the idea of teachable perks, all the way back to the beta. I really wish the characters had roles to play, instead of full customization. It wound up creating exactly what I had warned, a perk meta that every sweaty player would run.
It made some sense, at the time, because the game was geared toward solo survivors and gameplay that was a bit more cutthroat among survivors. But, once they added SWF shortly after release, that style of gameplay was pushed aside and things became more and more team-oriented.
So, unfortunately, now we have a strange mix of the two, and it doesn't really work well. I would love to see the removal of teachables in order to refocus roles into teamplay. I don't think it will ever happen though, but it would be a huge step towards creating better balance in matches.
Honestly, I feel it could go a long way in alleviating a lot of the qualms that killers currently have.
-
@Luven said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
It's only sexual if you make it sexual. I don't see any sexual objectification because I think with the head on my shoulders and not the one in my pants. Oh and you don't mind the idea of killing people and yet as soon as some skin shows you magically have a problem? I guess your priorities are in need of a checkup. Also why didn't you have a problem with shirtless David? Isn't that sexual objectification based on your terms? Such hypocrisy.Have you read my post? I said there were people who said she was sexy. It's a problem in itself that there are people like that. Just because you don't see it like that doesn't mean no matter with it.
I read your post and yet I see no issue. And who cares if they find her sexy? What's it to you any way? It's their opinion and their minds. Why should the developers listen to you just because you have an issue with something that is subjective in nature? Also is it a problem if I find a girl on the beach sexy? What do you want me to do? Just throw out my sexuality? Or are you gonna just try and censor that girl like she's a forbidden fruit? Just because you see it as a problem doesn't it is a problem.
Btw you didn't answer my question as to why you didn't have a problem with shirtless David yet.
No, you didn't read my post properly. If you read it correctly, you wouldn't ask a question about David. And is it a problem to look sexy on the beach? Of course. I think you're the one who doesn't think it's a problem. Do you really think it's not a problem to see her sexy with a dead body? Just because opinions and minds are freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything. And I'm not forcing you to change as I said. They need to figure out the problem with this character. The problem is that they don't realize it.
So what is this problem? That people think that a character in a video game is sexy? Over the years of gaming there has been countless titles that have had 'sexy' undead characters and no one had an issue with those. Like I think the skin exposure on the Spirit actually adds to the creepiness. Seeing skin that's blue is unnerving. Like I don't think it's an issue for people to find a game character sexy. And what about the people that find Huntress sexy even though she's a demented killer? So just because she's not undead it's ok? I just honestly think this 'problem' that you're trying to dig up is nothing more than a personal problem if anything.
Please, I've never played such a game and I'm just pointing out that the game I've been playing has that problem. I would point it out again if it was another game I was playing. And I've always thought there was a problem with sexy undead. When they gave her sexiness, I wouldn't say anything if they gave breast bouncing to male character who has big breast. Blue skin is not a problem. The problem is she looks like a corpse and gives her sexiness. And many articles already say she's sexy. Huntress doesn't look like a corpse, and Huntress doesn't wear only a few bandages like her. It's not a problem to tell her she's sexy. There are already quite a few comments about her problems that I have written about, to say my opinion is personal.
So. In other words. This is a personal problem for you to deal with. Gotcha.
What are you saying, you really don't understand my post. If it means so, the translation would be wrong. I never said I was personal. I'm surprised when you talk to me, your understanding is so bad. It's not a personal matter already. You just didn't intend to discuss this. Honestly, this isn't going to take you seriously at all.
Allow me to explain.
Nobody cares about your personal moral dilemma.
Nobody cares if you play the game or not.At the end of the day, the majority of DbD players are not objectifying the new killer. But, your little group of extremists are.
You are the sexist here, nobody else.
Please stop trying to inject your ideology into the game. Just run on back to Tumblr.
Well, if you've looked at this Forum properly, you know I'm not the only one to discuss it. And I'm a sexist? I'm talking about gender equality, you're the sexist. You're right that you didn't really understand my post. And yes, no one would care about me quitting. But what I want to talk about through this is that it's a serious problem that makes a user stop playing games. I don't want them to be interested in me quitting. And I don't do Tumblr.
Yes, you are sexist. You (and your little group of extremists on here) are looking at this character strictly through the lens of sex. Nobody else is doing that. Which is the problem with feminism, intersectionality, and identity politics as a whole.
You think you are fighting for equality, when you are actually trying to gain power and influence. You try to fight racism and sexism at every turn, because everything you see is racist or sexist. This is because you are focused on seeing things based on race or sex, making you both racist and sexist.
What you are following is an ideology. A religion that replaces God with women. That cites intersectionality as it's ten commandments, and decries the "Patriarchy" as it's Devil.
You need to take a look at what you are spouting with a critical eye and realize that you are just a set of talking points with no critical thought behind them. You have become the mouth piece for racism and sexism.
-
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
@Luven said:
@CallMeRusty420 said:
It's only sexual if you make it sexual. I don't see any sexual objectification because I think with the head on my shoulders and not the one in my pants. Oh and you don't mind the idea of killing people and yet as soon as some skin shows you magically have a problem? I guess your priorities are in need of a checkup. Also why didn't you have a problem with shirtless David? Isn't that sexual objectification based on your terms? Such hypocrisy.Have you read my post? I said there were people who said she was sexy. It's a problem in itself that there are people like that. Just because you don't see it like that doesn't mean no matter with it.
I read your post and yet I see no issue. And who cares if they find her sexy? What's it to you any way? It's their opinion and their minds. Why should the developers listen to you just because you have an issue with something that is subjective in nature? Also is it a problem if I find a girl on the beach sexy? What do you want me to do? Just throw out my sexuality? Or are you gonna just try and censor that girl like she's a forbidden fruit? Just because you see it as a problem doesn't it is a problem.
Btw you didn't answer my question as to why you didn't have a problem with shirtless David yet.
No, you didn't read my post properly. If you read it correctly, you wouldn't ask a question about David. And is it a problem to look sexy on the beach? Of course. I think you're the one who doesn't think it's a problem. Do you really think it's not a problem to see her sexy with a dead body? Just because opinions and minds are freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything. And I'm not forcing you to change as I said. They need to figure out the problem with this character. The problem is that they don't realize it.
So what is this problem? That people think that a character in a video game is sexy? Over the years of gaming there has been countless titles that have had 'sexy' undead characters and no one had an issue with those. Like I think the skin exposure on the Spirit actually adds to the creepiness. Seeing skin that's blue is unnerving. Like I don't think it's an issue for people to find a game character sexy. And what about the people that find Huntress sexy even though she's a demented killer? So just because she's not undead it's ok? I just honestly think this 'problem' that you're trying to dig up is nothing more than a personal problem if anything.
Please, I've never played such a game and I'm just pointing out that the game I've been playing has that problem. I would point it out again if it was another game I was playing. And I've always thought there was a problem with sexy undead. When they gave her sexiness, I wouldn't say anything if they gave breast bouncing to male character who has big breast. Blue skin is not a problem. The problem is she looks like a corpse and gives her sexiness. And many articles already say she's sexy. Huntress doesn't look like a corpse, and Huntress doesn't wear only a few bandages like her. It's not a problem to tell her she's sexy. There are already quite a few comments about her problems that I have written about, to say my opinion is personal.
So. In other words. This is a personal problem for you to deal with. Gotcha.
What are you saying, you really don't understand my post. If it means so, the translation would be wrong. I never said I was personal. I'm surprised when you talk to me, your understanding is so bad. It's not a personal matter already. You just didn't intend to discuss this. Honestly, this isn't going to take you seriously at all.
Allow me to explain.
Nobody cares about your personal moral dilemma.
Nobody cares if you play the game or not.At the end of the day, the majority of DbD players are not objectifying the new killer. But, your little group of extremists are.
You are the sexist here, nobody else.
Please stop trying to inject your ideology into the game. Just run on back to Tumblr.
-
@Brawler said:
Delfador said:@Brawler said:
"Not every killer is supposed to be good on high ranks. Let's have 3 killers that can play on rank 5-1 and 22 that can't"
I actually am okay with that. Newcomers need to have easy but not effective killers. There are two problems with this though.
Why would you make a horror icon like leatherface an easy not effective killer? If anything, billy should have had leatherface's ability while leatherface having billy's ability.
Why would you create 1 or 2 killers for the high ranks and 9-10 for the low ranks? Newcomers and average killers need 4 killers to play. Other 8 should be viable at high ranks.
Exactly. I always considered the lincesed killers strong and terryfing. Although, all of them here are rather midtier or is the worst killer in the game.
This is why I don't like licensed killers in the game. I grew up in the 80s, and my life completely revolved around going to see the latest Nightmare on Elm Street, or Friday the 13th, or Halloween. I even remember seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 in the theater. I've been a die-hard horror fan for my entire life. This game has taken so many of these horror icons that were such a huge part of my life and turned them into irrelevant jokes.
Michael Myers isn't scary anymore. He's not a threat. He's just annoying to play against.
It's the same for all of the licensed killers that have been added to the game. They're not legendary icons anymore. They've been turned into worse versions of original killers, in some cases, and annoyances in others.
I'd rather BHVR just stick with making original killers in the future, instead of ruining even more horror legends.
-
@CoffengMin said:
quick questuon , does someone know if she can go to a far gen thats being worked on and grab people? i know she cant see while sprinting but you might be able to grab them if you guess where they areI got grabbed off of one out of nowhere last night. Caught me completely off guard.
-
@Noexit0 said:
Yeah, she's dead. But can't you get it?
they are putting sexual objectification on Dead body. So wrong.
Why you guys are trying to prevent changing her outfit? The new killer is dead person? Wow. I think skeleton is more related, not a porn-girl who has dead skin and wearing few bandages for her body.No, they are not.
In fact, the only person objectifying her in this thread, is you.
You're the one focused on her body parts.
You're the one calling her a porn-girl.It's your skyscraper level of sensitivity and need to push your own moral agenda on everyone else that causes you to objectify her.
-
No, that would be impossible.
But, it's in a bundle right now, so $15 will get you that and a number of other games that are pretty fun:
-
@AshleyWB said:
Can we please have the option to censor Nea's face. I can't stand it. My eyes have suffered enough.I think she's getting a ninja mask type cosmetic which I'm sure will become quite popular. So, your eyes may not have to suffer much longer.
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Mc_Harty said:
@Giche said:
To fight the said toxicity.Not letting peoples spewing lies and non-sense to keep the game unbalanced (worked well for them sadly)
To try to not get another Freddy's fiasco.
I know that there are other Veteran down here WAY BETTER than me at this, but hey, i can still try to help.
You cannot be serious....
That's sad. I'm fighting toxicity.
I can't even laugh at that it's so depressing.
You have my condolences buddy.
What is wrong with fighting toxicity? i think thats great personally.
There's nothing wrong with fighting toxicity, but two wrongs don't make a right. Using terms like "Scrubvivor" doesn't add anything to a discussion, makes his points seem less valid, and starts flame wars instead of rational debate on topics.
Looking at a number of his posts, he tends to fuel it instead of fight it.
-
@JEWberry said:
Yes, she has the potential to be with experience. Play her and play against her and anyone can see it. Just wait till people get more experience and it will be crazy.She can snowball like the nurse and it becomes very hard to recover.
She has mind game galore like the nurse
High map traversability and during chases like the nurse.
Ability has large cooldown if used too much and she can’t go through walls unlike the nurse.
However, using the ability efficiently can make it have a small cooldown.I totally agree. I feel that she is going to have a larger learning curve than most killers, but once that's reached, she's going to be quite formidable.
-
@White_Owl said:
@Redcum said:
@White_Owl said:
Frankly whoever finds something sex-related in the new killer is a creep.Oh please , dare telling me you wouldn't smash.
I'd rather get smashed by the Huntress ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
She reminds me way too much of my ex-wife.
-
@MinusTheBillie said:
He deserves some love and I'm hoping the changes are noticable improvements. He shouldn't be abandoned just because he's not known as a top tier pick. Im excited to hear some feedback from the Bing bong boys out there. Wraith mains exist.Unfortunately, I was only in one match against a Wraith last night. But, the changes were definitely noticeable. It was a lot more difficult to gain any distance and break LoS. Cloaked, he was on me instantly. I wish I had been paying more attention to what he was running post-match, but I was just trying to get as many matches in as possible before I went to bed.
It's hard to say how much they've improved him. I'm really hoping to get some more matches against him, and start a few lobbies as him. I didn't play killer at all last night because the lobby wait times were atrocious, so I'm going to try to focus on him and The Spirit tonight.
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@BROWN said:
@Vietfox said:
Yes they are social problems but i cant see how a video game is making it worse to those problems.
You think people take less seriously this issues because they are shown in a video game? Damn, i didnt even think about domestic violence till you said it, and i'm pretty sure no one else but you did.It does not mean that video games exacerbate social problems. If you are dealing with the weak, you have to be a little more equal and uncomfortable. If a character who was killed by racial discrimination comes out, does he need to describe in detail what abused, how many, who was attacked, how he died, and who abused the character? No. Did HillBilly describe in detail what abused and how his parents hit him and how? HillBilly was emphasized to be a murderer using saws. Spirit does not have to be so stressed that her past and her father are so. It is unnecessary and unpleasant.
Yes, it actually does need to be described. This game is horror themed, and that's exactly what horror, as a genre is. It's a safe way to hold up a very dark mirror to our reality. This is why fans of the genre enjoy it so much, because it allows us to explore dark and mature themes without being directly affected by them.
You cannot be overly-sensitive and a fan of the genre. Those two things directly contradict each other.
Horror isn't jumpscares. It's dark fantasy. It's a peek into topics that are terrifying, visceral, and taboo. Once you start trying to remove those things, the genre no longer exists.
You do realize that the old vampire tales are an allegory for #########, right? That Frankenstein was a cautionary tale of man trying to become God? That werewolves are a reflection of our own carnal, bestial natures, and were used as a reasoning behind serial killings and mass murders?
The last thing you do in horror is look away, because then the lessons the genre teaches us are lost.
Wow thats really cool actually.
And sorry for my reaction on the other thread . It was just a very shocking post to me.
No need to apologize. I just enjoy critical thought and debate. Many times I don't post on here because things degenerate quickly. But, I love learning, and seeing new perspectives on things. I'm not a wall, by any means.
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
Thats still just stalling. Not outplaying tho.False. How is it the survivor stalling you if you're the one adding pressure to them? Try again.
@pauloandrade22 said:
i could try but a wall wont budge right?Please read the following quote from me. Also, you may want to step away from the forum and take a good, long, introspective look in the mirror before making statements like that.
@245_Trioxin said:
I'm more than willing to sit here and listen to your opinions on it. I'm not closed-minded, and my opinion can be changed.Or you can just make snide remarks. Either or.
@pauloandrade22 said:
I hope so too.Look, I gave a rational way to actually deter genrushing and looping, and take back the true power role in the match.
The ball is now in your court. So are you going to:
A. Further the discussion like a rational human being?
B. Keep parroting the same tired talking points that killers on this forum overuse daily?
C. Try to be witty and fail miserably? -
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?
Basically its when i know you are running in the same exact places that millions have ran(and i know your routing too by the way) but my character (a non nurse killer basically can't counter it unless they [BAD WORD] up ) just to stall me without any attempt to lose or outplay me . Its very frustrating. Especially when people say that that is outplaying the killer(its not).
No, I know what looping is. I want you to explain to me how stalling the killer and getting them away from the other survivors that are doing gens is not outplaying the killer.
Because it is outplaying the killer. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If a killer gets "stalled" while multiple gens are completed, then the killer got outplayed. It's like playing chess and only watching the moves of one pawn. There's a larger strategy there (that doesn't even need to be communicated, so don't bring SWF into this) that the killer is missing.
So the Killer lets the opponent he should crush 1v1 live, goes to chase another one, boom, looped again. Goes for the third one, boom looped. Fourth one, looped. Oh, wait, all gens have been repaired because looping has no downsides.
Nope. Put pressure on the gens, making the game take longer, chip away at the survivors and force them to make mistakes instead of waiting for them to, and take advantage of those mistakes in order to get the sacrifice. Like I said, it's like chess. I see a lot of talk about mindgames, but it never extends past a pallet or jungle gym.
Don't let the survivors control the pace of the match, take control of the match and force them to make poor decisions. Every time you try to "crush" the survivor by chasing them down through multiple pallets, you're playing into their game.
At the end of the day, you are getting outplayed simply by chasing any one survivor for too long.
Now another question: does it strike you as balanced that the Killer has to consistently lose chases (which are 1v1, where the power role in an asymmetrical game is supposed to crush the opponent) to win the game?
Maybe it's more that your fundamental concept of "my power role is based on crushing opponents" is flawed.
Maybe, just maybe, the idea that "the job of the killer is to kill" is false. Look at it from a different angle. The job of the player is to win. So, if we instead look at it that way, the killer is supposed to, before anything, mitigate gen progression, in order to increase match time and pressure on the survivors, which brings the end result of capitalizing on this combination of time and pressure in order to get sacrifices.
Here's the problem, so long as you let the survivors dictate the rules of the match, you don't have the power role. This isn't something the devs can fix, or the survivors. Only you can fix it. The killer in most matches is submissive, chasing instead of forcing.
Learn what an actual power role is, and become it.
And thats the post where logic was murdered in a brutal and horrifying way.
Elaborate
Please, prove me wrong.
-
@BROWN said:
@Vietfox said:
Yes they are social problems but i cant see how a video game is making it worse to those problems.
You think people take less seriously this issues because they are shown in a video game? Damn, i didnt even think about domestic violence till you said it, and i'm pretty sure no one else but you did.It does not mean that video games exacerbate social problems. If you are dealing with the weak, you have to be a little more equal and uncomfortable. If a character who was killed by racial discrimination comes out, does he need to describe in detail what abused, how many, who was attacked, how he died, and who abused the character? No. Did HillBilly describe in detail what abused and how his parents hit him and how? HillBilly was emphasized to be a murderer using saws. Spirit does not have to be so stressed that her past and her father are so. It is unnecessary and unpleasant.
Yes, it actually does need to be described. This game is horror themed, and that's exactly what horror, as a genre is. It's a safe way to hold up a very dark mirror to our reality. This is why fans of the genre enjoy it so much, because it allows us to explore dark and mature themes without being directly affected by them.
You cannot be overly-sensitive and a fan of the genre. Those two things directly contradict each other.
Horror isn't jumpscares. It's dark fantasy. It's a peek into topics that are terrifying, visceral, and taboo. Once you start trying to remove those things, the genre no longer exists.
You do realize that the old vampire tales are an allegory for #########, right? That Frankenstein was a cautionary tale of man trying to become God? That werewolves are a reflection of our own carnal, bestial natures, and were used as a reasoning behind serial killings and mass murders?
The last thing you do in horror is look away, because then the lessons the genre teaches us are lost.
-
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?
Basically its when i know you are running in the same exact places that millions have ran(and i know your routing too by the way) but my character (a non nurse killer basically can't counter it unless they [BAD WORD] up ) just to stall me without any attempt to lose or outplay me . Its very frustrating. Especially when people say that that is outplaying the killer(its not).
No, I know what looping is. I want you to explain to me how stalling the killer and getting them away from the other survivors that are doing gens is not outplaying the killer.
Because it is outplaying the killer. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If a killer gets "stalled" while multiple gens are completed, then the killer got outplayed. It's like playing chess and only watching the moves of one pawn. There's a larger strategy there (that doesn't even need to be communicated, so don't bring SWF into this) that the killer is missing.
So the Killer lets the opponent he should crush 1v1 live, goes to chase another one, boom, looped again. Goes for the third one, boom looped. Fourth one, looped. Oh, wait, all gens have been repaired because looping has no downsides.
Nope. Put pressure on the gens, making the game take longer, chip away at the survivors and force them to make mistakes instead of waiting for them to, and take advantage of those mistakes in order to get the sacrifice. Like I said, it's like chess. I see a lot of talk about mindgames, but it never extends past a pallet or jungle gym.
Don't let the survivors control the pace of the match, take control of the match and force them to make poor decisions. Every time you try to "crush" the survivor by chasing them down through multiple pallets, you're playing into their game.
At the end of the day, you are getting outplayed simply by chasing any one survivor for too long.
Now another question: does it strike you as balanced that the Killer has to consistently lose chases (which are 1v1, where the power role in an asymmetrical game is supposed to crush the opponent) to win the game?
Maybe it's more that your fundamental concept of "my power role is based on crushing opponents" is flawed.
Maybe, just maybe, the idea that "the job of the killer is to kill" is false. Look at it from a different angle. The job of the player is to win. So, if we instead look at it that way, the killer is supposed to, before anything, mitigate gen progression, in order to increase match time and pressure on the survivors, which brings the end result of capitalizing on this combination of time and pressure in order to get sacrifices.
Here's the problem, so long as you let the survivors dictate the rules of the match, you don't have the power role. This isn't something the devs can fix, or the survivors. Only you can fix it. The killer in most matches is submissive, chasing instead of forcing.
Learn what an actual power role is, and become it.
Are you saying that in an asymmetrical role, the power role isn't supposed to be able to defeat the number role 1v1, regardless of what the number role does?
No, I'm saying that your definition of power role is flawed. You can easily defeat any survivor in a 1v1, mechanically. You can down them, hook them, and sacrifice them. None of these things can be done to you by the survivor. But, if you, as a player, cannot beat the survivor because you can't take your blinders off and be the actual power role on the entire map, then you are submitting yourself to the survivor and handing them the power role.
A power role isn't mechanics, it's psychology and strategy.
I hope you're never in any position to affect the development of an asymmetrical game.
I'm more than willing to sit here and listen to your opinions on it. I'm not closed-minded, and my opinion can be changed.
Or you can just make snide remarks. Either or.
-
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?
Basically its when i know you are running in the same exact places that millions have ran(and i know your routing too by the way) but my character (a non nurse killer basically can't counter it unless they [BAD WORD] up ) just to stall me without any attempt to lose or outplay me . Its very frustrating. Especially when people say that that is outplaying the killer(its not).
No, I know what looping is. I want you to explain to me how stalling the killer and getting them away from the other survivors that are doing gens is not outplaying the killer.
Because it is outplaying the killer. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If a killer gets "stalled" while multiple gens are completed, then the killer got outplayed. It's like playing chess and only watching the moves of one pawn. There's a larger strategy there (that doesn't even need to be communicated, so don't bring SWF into this) that the killer is missing.
So the Killer lets the opponent he should crush 1v1 live, goes to chase another one, boom, looped again. Goes for the third one, boom looped. Fourth one, looped. Oh, wait, all gens have been repaired because looping has no downsides.
Nope. Put pressure on the gens, making the game take longer, chip away at the survivors and force them to make mistakes instead of waiting for them to, and take advantage of those mistakes in order to get the sacrifice. Like I said, it's like chess. I see a lot of talk about mindgames, but it never extends past a pallet or jungle gym.
Don't let the survivors control the pace of the match, take control of the match and force them to make poor decisions. Every time you try to "crush" the survivor by chasing them down through multiple pallets, you're playing into their game.
At the end of the day, you are getting outplayed simply by chasing any one survivor for too long.
Now another question: does it strike you as balanced that the Killer has to consistently lose chases (which are 1v1, where the power role in an asymmetrical game is supposed to crush the opponent) to win the game?
Maybe it's more that your fundamental concept of "my power role is based on crushing opponents" is flawed.
Maybe, just maybe, the idea that "the job of the killer is to kill" is false. Look at it from a different angle. The job of the player is to win. So, if we instead look at it that way, the killer is supposed to, before anything, mitigate gen progression, in order to increase match time and pressure on the survivors, which brings the end result of capitalizing on this combination of time and pressure in order to get sacrifices.
Here's the problem, so long as you let the survivors dictate the rules of the match, you don't have the power role. This isn't something the devs can fix, or the survivors. Only you can fix it. The killer in most matches is submissive, chasing instead of forcing.
Learn what an actual power role is, and become it.
Are you saying that in an asymmetrical role, the power role isn't supposed to be able to defeat the number role 1v1, regardless of what the number role does?
No, I'm saying that your definition of power role is flawed. You can easily defeat any survivor in a 1v1, mechanically. You can down them, hook them, and sacrifice them. None of these things can be done to you by the survivor. But, if you, as a player, cannot beat the survivor because you can't take your blinders off and be the actual power role on the entire map, then you are submitting yourself to the survivor and handing them the power role.
A power role isn't mechanics, it's psychology and strategy.
-
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?
Basically its when i know you are running in the same exact places that millions have ran(and i know your routing too by the way) but my character (a non nurse killer basically can't counter it unless they [BAD WORD] up ) just to stall me without any attempt to lose or outplay me . Its very frustrating. Especially when people say that that is outplaying the killer(its not).
No, I know what looping is. I want you to explain to me how stalling the killer and getting them away from the other survivors that are doing gens is not outplaying the killer.
Because it is outplaying the killer. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If a killer gets "stalled" while multiple gens are completed, then the killer got outplayed. It's like playing chess and only watching the moves of one pawn. There's a larger strategy there (that doesn't even need to be communicated, so don't bring SWF into this) that the killer is missing.
So the Killer lets the opponent he should crush 1v1 live, goes to chase another one, boom, looped again. Goes for the third one, boom looped. Fourth one, looped. Oh, wait, all gens have been repaired because looping has no downsides.
Nope. Put pressure on the gens, making the game take longer, chip away at the survivors and force them to make mistakes instead of waiting for them to, and take advantage of those mistakes in order to get the sacrifice. Like I said, it's like chess. I see a lot of talk about mindgames, but it never extends past a pallet or jungle gym.
Don't let the survivors control the pace of the match, take control of the match and force them to make poor decisions. Every time you try to "crush" the survivor by chasing them down through multiple pallets, you're playing into their game.
At the end of the day, you are getting outplayed simply by chasing any one survivor for too long.
Now another question: does it strike you as balanced that the Killer has to consistently lose chases (which are 1v1, where the power role in an asymmetrical game is supposed to crush the opponent) to win the game?
Maybe it's more that your fundamental concept of "my power role is based on crushing opponents" is flawed.
Maybe, just maybe, the idea that "the job of the killer is to kill" is false. Look at it from a different angle. The job of the player is to win. So, if we instead look at it that way, the killer is supposed to, before anything, mitigate gen progression, in order to increase match time and pressure on the survivors, which brings the end result of capitalizing on this combination of time and pressure in order to get sacrifices.
Here's the problem, so long as you let the survivors dictate the rules of the match, you don't have the power role. This isn't something the devs can fix, or the survivors. Only you can fix it. The killer in most matches is submissive, chasing instead of forcing.
Learn what an actual power role is, and become it.
-
@Orion said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?
Basically its when i know you are running in the same exact places that millions have ran(and i know your routing too by the way) but my character (a non nurse killer basically can't counter it unless they [BAD WORD] up ) just to stall me without any attempt to lose or outplay me . Its very frustrating. Especially when people say that that is outplaying the killer(its not).
No, I know what looping is. I want you to explain to me how stalling the killer and getting them away from the other survivors that are doing gens is not outplaying the killer.
Because it is outplaying the killer. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If a killer gets "stalled" while multiple gens are completed, then the killer got outplayed. It's like playing chess and only watching the moves of one pawn. There's a larger strategy there (that doesn't even need to be communicated, so don't bring SWF into this) that the killer is missing.
So the Killer lets the opponent he should crush 1v1 live, goes to chase another one, boom, looped again. Goes for the third one, boom looped. Fourth one, looped. Oh, wait, all gens have been repaired because looping has no downsides.
Nope. Put pressure on the gens, making the game take longer, chip away at the survivors and force them to make mistakes instead of waiting for them to, and take advantage of those mistakes in order to get the sacrifice. Like I said, it's like chess. I see a lot of talk about mindgames, but it never extends past a pallet or jungle gym.
Don't let the survivors control the pace of the match, take control of the match and force them to make poor decisions. Every time you try to "crush" the survivor by chasing them down through multiple pallets, you're playing into their game.
At the end of the day, you are getting outplayed simply by chasing any one survivor for too long.
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
@245_Trioxin said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?
Basically its when i know you are running in the same exact places that millions have ran(and i know your routing too by the way) but my character (a non nurse killer basically can't counter it unless they [BAD WORD] up ) just to stall me without any attempt to lose or outplay me . Its very frustrating. Especially when people say that that is outplaying the killer(its not).
No, I know what looping is. I want you to explain to me how stalling the killer and getting them away from the other survivors that are doing gens is not outplaying the killer.
Because it is outplaying the killer. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If a killer gets "stalled" while multiple gens are completed, then the killer got outplayed. It's like playing chess and only watching the moves of one pawn. There's a larger strategy there (that doesn't even need to be communicated, so don't bring SWF into this) that the killer is missing.
-
@Spaaaaaace_steam_ said:
@245_Trioxin said:
Okay, so I get that teabagging and flashlight clicking can be seen as toxic, but I'm really confused on how 360s are. Most players are pretty bad at them, and you can usually catch them out on the 2nd try, if they actually pull it off the first time. I know some players can go a bit overboard with them, but it is a legitimate way to attempt to dodge a killer's attack when there are no structures around.More so, I'm incredibly confused by "messing with the killers aim". What do you mean by this?
is it legit tho ? Killer can really do anything about it , and it works really well against doctor and michael , while on wraith i have no problem with it , and at least for me its REALLY annoying that its possible .
Sure they can. It's really not difficult to catch a survivor out when they try to 360. It tends to work better on new killers, but once they get used to the timing on the attack, 360s become far less effective. I really don't see how it would be considered toxic. That's effectively asking the survivor to not dodge an attack out in the open.
But, back to my question. What do you mean by "messing with the killer's aim"?
-
@Esheon said:
Anything up to 250 is playable, IMO. Though if it spikes back and forth from yellow to red regularly for more than 20 seconds, I'll usually bow out.Yeah, it is totally playable. I pretty consistently play as a survivor between 160-250ms. Often when I'm playing as a survivor, I'm playing with a friend of mine back home in the US (I'm American, but live in Romania). It's how we catch up with each other throughout the week. His network connection is nowhere near as good as mine, so I have him start the SWF lobby and invite me. I tend to have to deal with wonky hits from the killer around pallets and windows, but it's just something you learn to compensate for.
But, I definitely will leave the lobby if it's bouncing too much between yellow and red.
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
Stalling is not outplaying.I've seen this stated a few times recently, and it's a pretty confusing statement. Can you please elaborate on this?