Alice_pbg
Alice_pbg
About
- Username
- Alice_pbg
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,607
- Last Active
Comments
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634586#Comment_3634586
Do you think my initial post, which I made before you even weighed in, was in response to you?
I pointed out that other users were admitting to those behaviors and called them greifing, you objected to my use of that word, I explained why I thought the term applied to those other users. I'm very sorry it turns out I wasn't time traveling to talk about you.
why am I the only one time travelling?
and I said, not saving someone on hook is not griefing. because it isn't. it takes more than not saving you once to reach that.
the reason matters, the frequency matters, general context of the game matters.
until you get me a mod or someone to say that it is griefing, it is just your opinion that it should be.
-
nah. don't really care about him. or his perks.
maybe in a promotion in the future
-
tbf, I get the locking of the condemned meter getting nerfed.
knife fingers crossed for freddy.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634477#Comment_3634477
Well, let's do a thought experiment here.
If someone decides that tunneling is always the correct play, then two things happen:
- They will completely stomp similarly skilled teams due to the fact that tunneling is easy, efficient, and difficult to counter.
- They won't learn as much about the game, like how to play macro, when and where to actually drop chase, which chases are worth taking, just as examples.
So this killer player will win a large number of games against similarly skilled survivors. Then, as the game determines that they're winning so much they must be better than the game thinks they are, their MMR increases to give more difficult opponents.
This continues until, inevitably, they hit a ceiling, where the survivors they are matched with are so much better at chase that chases take longer, and/or survivor teams are so much better coordinated that purely tunneling becomes a strategy that no longer guarantees a win. The killer will stabilize at around a 50% win rate and stay there.
At that point, they're up against way better opponents, and their game sense and skill is not good enough for them to feel capable of competing.
This is the exact thing that nearly all killer players on this forum describe. And typically the biggest complaints are that they 'have to tunnel', and 'have to sweat' every game. Also accompanied by cries to nerf things like coordination (SWF), looping (Dead Hard, MfT, WoO), or strategies that specifically target their only strategy of tunneling (BU + FtP nerf coming soon) because they can't accept that they aren't literally the best in the game or could learn something. Or if not nerfs, just complaining about MMR 'not working' because they didn't learn anything other than 'chase the first guy until he dies'.
It's a prison of their own making, and it's all because tunneling is truly brain dead simple, and it's apparently the only way some people know how to play the game. Considering any other option is completely out of the question.
so, no. it did not matter that everyone agreed. even in your scenario.
in fact if everyone disagreed the results would be the same. as long as the player plays that way.
has nothing to do with general agreement.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634373#Comment_3634373
there were multiple people in this thread explicitly saying they would refuse to unhook anyone who attempted to 4%, specifically to punish the attempt at a 4%, and that they would point-blank refuse to rescue the person on second hook. the first of those meets the definition of "spite" and the second fits the definition of "letting a teammate die".
i may not be able to read your mind, but i can certainly read the posts of other people in this thread and i'm willing to trust people are telling the truth about their motivations - unless you're willing to break the forum rules by accusing those other users of lying and trolling?
did I say that?
or do you think I am other people?
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634431#Comment_3634431
But you understand that's not how everyone sees it, right?
Personally, I prefer to apply pressure to the survivors and go chase someone else after a hook. Having one on hook, one going for rescue, and one in chase is 75% of survivors off gens.
Tunneling is so strong, that having one survivor out early enough will just flat out win the killer the game. And if the option is 'basically just always tunnel, it's always the correct move' that seems like a problem in a PvP game.
does it matter if everyone sees it like that?
-
"weird mask" "predator claws? cool!" "######### is that walk cycle?" - basically this.
I'll challenge the "any original killer we see for the first time, we will recognize his identity immediately" notion. you do that because you know them.
you see a knight? that is a knight. that is simple.
also works for clown. because clowns are easily recognizable.
what is this?
"killer in mask"? what can you actually tell about legion from a first seeing of this alone?
and this?
what is hag? based on this image, the first viewing, what can you tell about hag? claws, teeth... so she uses magic? it doesn't follow unless you know.
and,
I would not give darkness powers. more of a blob style power. it absorbs things and incorporates it into itself. which she does, but the darkness isn't obvious on a first look. (and I picked a very favorable image for it. seriously, some makes dredge look like she is just a bunch of random pieces of meat and nothing else)
now, all of these designs make perfect sense, and when you know, you can spot the details that inform the character that were put in it.
but, they aren't necessarily there on a first look. you gotta pay attention or know the lore.
including,
the knight.
you can tell they are a knight from first glance. like you would a jester. but what else? can you tell their power? personality? gender? the actual time they come from? people make and wear armor today.
I don't think you can. those require a deep look.
You can for instance tell that the knight towers over the survivor. yes he is not standing, but even the sword is taller than him. so knight big. big sword, so knight strong.
the sword has spikes, don't know what they do practically irl but, I can interpret that as they implying the knight wants to cause extra damage when he hits someone. so they are kind of a sadist.
that is backed up by the spikes on their right shoulder, left knee and hand. just to hurt people.
the sword is damaged and maybe rusted in places. also has blood in it. so they use it a lot, but doesn't particularly care about keeping it pristine. same with the clothing/armor.
there is not a single piece on skin showing on the knight, usually that kind of thing implies an abandoning of humanity or that they hide it.
the only thing I see in his design implying the dead, which is what his power is about, is the chains. commonly associated with ghosts and stuff. but getting that from the design alone would be quite a reach imo.
now let's look at our 3rd favorite brazillian from dbd
very decorated mask and finger...thingies. also bracelet, collars, earings... so she cares about looks to some degree.
the mask is also a gas mask. so it ain't all just for show they have some function aswell.
the mask does not cover her entire face, I would get from this that she wants to be able to see with her own eye whatever it is. or wants other to see her.
has a mechanical device on her arm and shoulder. held in place by 2 belts. probably used to help with weight or to increase strike power. maybe both. so she uses tools.
the device has visible wiring in places with duct tape holding it in her arm. this implies she made those herself. so she is intelligent. also fixing things like that is very brazillian of her, "didn't quite fit... duck tape works. Yep, don't need to bother getting the correct sized piece, this is good".
she carries 2 belts. one on her leg and one in the regular spot, both with bags. can't really see what is inside it, but can assume they have supplies she might need. maybe for repairs. maybe some medical supplies and/or food aswell. so she likes to be prepared.
she has knee pads (I think that's the name). honestly good on her. hurting your knee while carrying the mechanical arm would probably be very bad.
a simple jumpsuit kinda tells me she is very practical. but also contrasts the mask. so she knows where she can flaunt.
and I rest my case.
first looks matter, but don't judge a book by it's cover is a saying for a reason. a bad one cause you should, the authors put a lot of work on the covers.
but message still applies. surface looks are often not correct.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634383#Comment_3634383
I mean, there *should* be a point where the killer at least considered switching targets, especially if a chase lasts 4 gens. If 3 survivors finish 4 gens, that chase is lasting several minutes and the killer is getting drastically outplayed in chase by their current target or they're making a large number of mistakes themselves.
The problem here is that nearly all roads lead to tunneling:
- Is the first chase short? Well, guess we've found an easy target, and the answer is tunneling.
- It's the first chase long? Well, the killer invested too much time and had to guarantee a kill this game, and the answer is tunneling.
So if you're saying there's actually no point where the killer would ever consider switching targets if a chase is taking too long (which is honestly just good game sense) then quite literally tunneling is always the only play.
Gee, I wonder why this is such a common way to play the game.
the killer probably should have. and it's possible they had good times to switch targets during the chase, and just leave op for last.
but like I said, at that point they were in too deep. Realizing when to give up a bad chase is a learned skill.
also, disagree on the first one. short first chase means you have the time to engage in a different chase with another survivor.
-
what did you expect freddy to do there? you apparently ran him for 4 gens. wanted him to just leave?
at that point, he gotta confirm a kill or hope you all screw up a bunch to turn things around. which would you pick?
-
@NerfDHalready said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633454#Comment_3633454
it IS griefing, like huh? if you are that petty and decide to let me go 2nd, i'll not only go 2nd but also go next, no problem.
i said they have the perks OR might have them; also it's not that big of a deal so even, yes, a suspicion is more than enough of a reason for me to attempt. ofc that suspicion isn't "they might have one of the 384573845 killer perks in the game" but more if they play like they have it (believe it or not but it's very easy to call devour or floods) or i've been notified of undying and didn't see any other hex perk yet.
i have enough experience to tell how much distance allows what so i'll decide on that. if the killer is too close, attempting would make the rescuer panic and trade even when unnecessary. attempting and succeeding when the killer isn't that close but coming would save the rescuer a hit they would otherwise take because unhooking animation takes forever. i'll also be fine jumping off that hook with the killer nearby because someone is getting in chase and a hit regardless and that better be me with bt.
no, it ain't. like said above. simply refusing a heal or an unhook isn't by itself an issue. context is king, as people say.
many times in regular gameplay people have gone 2nd stage because time and/or killer and/or had to do a thing and/or other stuff including the controller literaly dieing on me. these happen.
how can you tell why? unless they tell you of course.
and I think might is not enough of a reason. because you could be denying advantages to your teammate. including a guaranteed self unhook. they are there already, let them save you.
bt runs out. and if you fail, which you likely will, there's an animation delay that might screw everything up for the unhook. also you were on the hook already, better someone fresh go on hook than you again.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633454#Comment_3633454
Intentionally letting someone die on hook for no reason other than to spite them is griefing, yes. I'm not sure how you would possibly argue it wouldn't be
spite? I'm just playing the game.
unless you can read minds for some reason, it's just regular gameplay.
also, who said die?
-
@Mandy said:
When we made the decision to limit regression events on a generator, the number was carefully decided - in a regular match it is very very very rare that a generator is regressed that many times (outside of a 3 gen match). And with the base kick regression being increased to 5% that's also giving an extra boost to perks such as Nowhere to Hide, it just makes them a bit more thoughtful to use - mananging your regression if that's your playstyle.
sorry but how is the 5% a boost to nowhere to hide?
it's a boost to kicking in general, but has no effect on that perk.
-
I want my boy
-
@BlightedTrapper said:
People really pout and throw a fit when people unhook in front of them? Why? The outcome is indentical, they're off the hook and you can heal them. Only difference is the 1.5k bloodpoints is shifted from you to them. Are you really going to throw the entire match over 1.5k bloodpoints??
from the top of your head. name me 1 perk that activates when you unhook someone.
now, name 1 one perk that activates when someone else unhooks themselves.
tome challenges? daily rituals? achievements?
these are all reasons to sit down and let the person unhook you.
but no... you want 1.5k bps...
@Selfpreservated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632201#Comment_3632201
How is something that doesnt negatively affect the match as unhooking themself in front of another survivor comparable to hiding all game to get the hatch?
perks you might have didn't activate. that negatively impacted the match.
@NerfDHalready said:
i'd expect someone not heal me if i unhook myself like that but it's still very petty. anything further than that is griefing (obviously), unjustified and unacceptable. please grow up.
i don't attempt every time like that now because the rescuer might have unhooking perks, especially deli and we'll make it. i only do it in specific scenarios like:
- i'm fully infected against a plague
- the killer has (or might have) myc, devour or floods
- the rescuer is still away but on their way so i try to maybe save their time if the match is going tight
- the killer is coming at the rescuer but not very close so the rescuer is probably gonna get hit
then wait on the hook. it is very much not griefing.
- they are coming for you right? perks still activate.
- might? you doing this on a guess? no. be sure.
- again, perks. also they might need rescues for some tome or ritual.
- so you don't know? again? can you not do this on guesses? you jump, the killer switches to you, good job.
@allana said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632291#Comment_3632291
It's not to be selfish, and it's not for fun.
There's an achievement to unhook yourself so many times, and if that 4% works, you get progress on the achievement and you can heal. If not, you're saved anyway.
If people aren't doing the achievement, well then so be it. Why be mad a teammate got a 4% or they didn't?
it is selfish. and it's to be annoying to the other person.
want the achievement? use deliverence like everyone else.
@ratcoffee said:
love the people admitting to griefing their teammates for using an intended mechanic in a risk free way. very smart thing to do on the bhvr forum
not saving someone on the hook is griefing? damn... the playerbase is gonna go down real quick when people start reporting that.
on the general topic.
I'm not required to save you. if you decide you got this yourself, don't be surprised if I believe you.
-
would
-
surprised @GeneralV didn't get here before me honestly.
but what was wrong with him is being made early. so the 7 sec transition was basically free time for the survivors. now you can just give them a status that stops them from doing stuff besides vaulting or using a pallet.
freddy was fun to play. and being in the nightmare MATTERED.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3631690#Comment_3631690
- One less bullet
- We are assuming your referring to why 3 gen killers do what they do correct? If so we are unsure as to how this bullet goes with the corresponding one.
Survivors do have agency, but less than the killer. Its more of who does what then the other side reacts then repeats till the matches end. Survivors try this stalling tactic? The killer can simply chase them down and force the survivors to react by either doing the gens now, or someones going on hook and they got to deal with that while the killer comes back looking for someone new. If they're doing bite sized bits and assuming the killer notices, then usually the killer chasing should either catch someone or quickly burn resources for the next chase which they can easily find. Lose a gen now, get hooks later.
- Wouldn't call it just a skill thing as the killer also chooses not to stop them. That's a choice thing. Sure sometimes skill is involved but if they chose not to try can they say anything about it?
- For us its ok (we're not exactly standard here) as we like to actually hunt down people instead of running around a rock we can see over for 3 laps. Our build depends on the killer but generally we do not use many tracking perks. We learned to track through brains and being thorough (having to hunt down blenddettes during our early years without them helped). And just because we don't use tracking perks often doesn't mean they aren't an option. If people have a hard time finding survivors then the perks help shore that weakness. We are not opposed to something that would reveal super immersed survivors though like on IDV.
- The killer gave up on early on it but if its not finished they can go back and regress it. Theres also the fact perks like pain res and oppression can regress gens that were left. More time for the killer should equal more time to kill the survivors. We also can't find the heavily contested part in any post but if so then there should be burned resources if it genuinely was contested.
- And another one down
- And another one down
- [Damn so close] Then the previous point stands. The killer will eventually need to make some gamble as if 4 survivors are still kicking and theres 3 gens left, they're in a slowly loosing position by staying there. The killers objective is again the survivors and should be trying to actively kill them and now they can only wait so long before needing to make a move.
- not why. why is way too relative. just that they will take the easy down if presented. like survivors in that possible situation would in theory do the slow progress thing and just finish the gen if it was given easily.
exactly, the killer is kinda forced into bad choices. similarly to how survivors were against the 3 gen skull merchant. it's all bad choices but you just gotta brute force one of them and hope for the best.
if survivors doing this becomes a thing, I hope it gets a similar treatment. that is basically what it boils down to.
- for me it's generally ok too but sometimes... it's just the worst. way too long walking around checking hiding spots and nothing happens. if 4 survivors good at it decide to go for this playstyle, it would be miserable against the average killer (character).
- the point of giving up the gen was because the gen was getting close to not being able to be regressed anymore, right? so it had to be contested. even if not directly by kicks.
they can still play safe around it, so they are far enough away from the gen to reach some resources.
- 🎼another one bites the dust
- yea. which goes back to the first point in this. it's all bad choices that you just need to brute force one and hope it works.
-
no need to remove the 4%.
just remove the 4% attempts killing you.
@Shroompy said:
Or just make it reportable. An actual person can determine whether or not a person is killing themselves to throw or to give hatch
I see that as potentially abusable...
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3629625#Comment_3629625
Currently the team can use it a maximum of 5 times in which you have to find all 5 totems rather than benefit off a single totem multiple times. It's a shared resource.
but in this scenario, you are using 2 perks. so I figured I could give it a bigger number to compensate
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3630703#Comment_3630703
- Fair, but we got different beliefs. We believe the killer should also be actively progressing the game. Survivors shouldn't be the ones to start the interactions as it's on the killer to be trying to kill them, they should try to be avoiding unnecessary interactions so they don't end up dead. Not to say survivors shouldn't also be actively progressing the game as well but theirs comes with the risk of elimination. We also agree that saying doing gens is interacting is a bit of a leap.
- Your going to need to elaborate that first part. "they do if it comes easy and as risk free as possible." (In actual details preferably) As for the second, since the killer can always chase, we can only conclude that they purposely put themselves in that scenario instead of a regular game. It sounds more like they camped a 3 gen the more we think on it.
- Fair enough, but then the killers really can't complain if survivors do take advantage of it since they didn't stop them.
- Often enough to notice. Tends to go pretty well for us since we can actually search pretty well, especially since we play both roles. Few things on that though. 1 is that theres a myriad of tracking perks (one of which is even extremely complained about for doing its job) that killers can run to help find survivors. Instead what most run is 3-4 regression or gen blocking perks which shockingly doesn't help find survivors. 2 is that hunting down survivors is a skill killers do need to learn how to do. Not just chasing down, locating them too. Crows flying off? Theres somethin there. A lack of crows in the area? Someones here recently.
- Thing is this also comes with risk to survivors as not finishing it means it could regress at the worst time. Both sides have to measure if its worth it.
- Are we to assume this comes with the gen regressing limit? If so then we admit it would be a simple and fair fix (though we'd personally go for 30 max. We like playing with our prey.) and agree to it.
- Still is a valid answer.
- We think something got lost in translation here. We are referring to 1 gen left correct? Not just one singular gen.
- I agree, both sides should want to be interacting.
- if the down comes easily, most 3 gen killers will take it. doubt they'll defend the hook, but they'll take it.
only if you think survivors have no agency over how the game goes.
- if it's a skill thing, yes.
- and how often is that fun? assuming the survivors are good at it and aren't just behind the first wall.
do you often use perks that happens to help with immersed survivors?
- but the gen can only be regressed so much, and was heavily contested already. I don't see any big risk in this scenario. and the killer supposedly gave up on the gen correct? why would it regress?
- we can always tune the timer afterwards. I assume it would be a quick fix.
- let's just agree to disagree on this one.
- something did get lost in translation... my bad. yes it is the 1 gen left to do, when there's 3 on the map.
-
doesn't really do anything.
but I'm just used to it existing.
-
getting old freddy back is always a top priority.
right after trapper buffs
-
I don't... not opening the door until I have to is muscle memory
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3630236#Comment_3630236
- The thing is, both sides are different. We agree with the sentiments but its a bit flawed here. Now if your solution meets our standard for fair we'll happily go along, but currently killers can keep burning ridiculous amounts of progress until the game stalls out, the entity gets pissed, and the survivors die (Personally don't know what exactly happens but i'm of the opinion that the killer shouldn't get any points should this happen) or alternatively the survivors go to the gen regardless of the killer being there and either die or get slugged for trying to do the equivalent.
- The distinction comes with the difference of the killer not bothering to really try and kill the survivors and to add a bit of lore, not feeding the entity. While ignoring gens is usually bad you don't need to keep watching them every 10 seconds, especially when the prey is in view or keep going back 5 seconds, especially if you scared off a survivor without even burning a pallet or gaining a hit. If they don't have a fear of you actually coming to kill them then they probably will just keep hanging around. At that point, the killer isn't trying to actually kill the survivors, they're defending gens. If we're goin the 3 gen killer is doing its job route then we're gona say that their doing it so poorly its the reason the entity set this system up so it gets more emotions other than dull apathy.
- Is the killer not responsible for trying to deprive survivors of advantages? We must of missed that. If you have the advantage of not being put in that situation and don't take it, who is to blame? What is helping is teaching that survivor to do better next time. That said, this is probably a poor comparison as the killer has more agency in both these situations.
- Ohh we don't deny a LOT of players are going to try and copy this. The only real question is if its actually effective. We're of the opinion this'll only be effective at those who've become used to camping 3 gens or heavily rely on slowdowns but everyones welcome to place bets. Thing is though, the killer again has agency in what they can do. They can try and combat this and have a realistic chance of succeeding.
- Isn't this like your scenario? Why the killer needs to consider the 3 gen is because if those 3 gens HAVE regressed earlier in the match, then they won't be regressing when those become the last ones. If those gens have regressed then the killer can't buy much more time on those gens than others. This ties into the above "deprive survivors of advantage". Also depending on how many survivors are left then its going to be a losing battle of attrition for the killer. Insult our intelligence and cant compute...
- Fair enough. So. What's your solution? Lets imagine this becomes a genuine problem for the average killer so for this bullet we'll temporarily acknowledge its a problem.
- Ohh its an answer, its not an answer you like but its an answer. To the burning house, most (atleast where we live) are going to ask how it happened. Grease fire? Dont use water. Got a fire extinguisher? Use it *******. You summoned cthulu? Go to a mental ward... Each scene is gona be different depending on what tools you got at the moment. Which sorta ties abit below.
- We think 1 gen because you never specified details so we can think up unicorns and bullets for all we care [vague parameters gets snark and imagination]. If you have 2-3 gens left...then pulsar's answer really does sound good for us. Take a damn chase and try and kill someone. While true progress is not guaranteed, not trying to actively make progress seems like a worse gamble. And both sets of options (yours and ours) are all gambles. But again, the killer CAN chase and the end game starts if they do lose the gen, where time may or may not be on their side.
Haven't really pointed otherwise
- I believe the killer should. because that means the survivors need to progress the game or they lose. like a push the cart game, one side needs to progress the thing, the other side win if they stop it.
otherwise survivors don't really need to interact with the killer, which I think their objective should incorporate it beyond saving teammates. (I know saying "doing gens interacts with the killer" is a bit of a push in logic, but they are in an area where the killer should be around so it promotes interaction at some point...better than nothing)
- they do if it comes easy and as risk free as possible.
if you can chase survivors and make them waste resources at normal pace, you are not at the scenario I described. just a regular game.
- no, not really. it's good if the killer does it but it's not their job. Is it my responsability to remember the perks of my fellow survivors and what their cooldowns are at aswell? or just better for me if I do?
- How often do you face immersed survivors? how do those go?
- so you meant earlier in the match, and that the killer should give up certain gens currently being pressured because they would eventually not be able to defend them. fair enough but I don't think being forced to give up a gen in this way is good strategy, more just playing around an issue. and what is stopping the survivors from realizing you did just that and not finish that gen?
- just add a 20 min timer to the matches. that way the survivors just don't have the time to do what I said. they HAVE to act.(can be 25+ if 20 seems too little but I think 20 is plenty)
considering the vast majority of my matches end before 15 min, this timer shouldn't matter to most games I would assume.
now, if you don't wanna just end the match at that time without anything, you can always add something like a special egc that triggers. maybe lasts half the time, killer sees the aura of the survivors for 5 seconds and survivors sees the killers aura for 1 second. nothing hides this aura reveal.
for lore reasons we can say the entity got annoyed and decided that you either finish it now or it will.
I believe this would solve any potential issue with anyone dragging out the game. because it now has a set time to end regardless.
- only if you consider captain hindsight a superhero.
- because if the survivors are doing it to only 1 gen, the killer would have all the time to look around that gen and find them. they need to be applying pressure in multiple places so the killer has to make one of a few bad choices.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3629651#Comment_3629651
There was one in the 17th century, in France possibly, complete with making pastries.
https://www.historydefined.net/the-truth-behind-the-story-of-sweeney-todd/
he wasn't a barber. just a cook.
but it's possible it's where the rumours came from.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3629624#Comment_3629624
Seeeeems like you think it's unfair as we read the post to Peanits. We also see you pointing out that scenario and going to poke it. Mainly with: it's different from a killer camping a 3 gen because the killers objective isn't the gens, it's the prey. The prey need to focus on the gens. This solution eventually forces the killer to do their damn....job? and chase the prey (which is what we translated from what pulsar said in so many words). A killer camping a 3 gen isn't really doing their "job" while survivors making then working on it are slowly progressing theirs. If it would prove to be an advantage then maybe the killer should try to prevent it by trying to kill them? Two of the best regression events are rewarded via hooks and a third with a down so you don't usually need that many events on a gen before someone should be dead.
Weird how a lot of ppl focus more on keeping gens down than killing when playing the killer.
We'll also add that now both sides will need need to think about a 3gen as now the killers also need to measure if it's worth having those gens or not while a 3 gen is still a dangerous thing for near dead survivors.
Fair, but we personally disagree. We do wish to ask that since you claim there's an easy solution what is stopping you from saying it?
Their answer answered what they think you should do (with an accusation thrown in but it DOES answer). You may not like it but it's there and by all technicalities we see, it ain't exactly wrong.
Favoritism is favoring one side over all others. And from what we've seen it doesn't seem incorrect. We could be wrong but we don't see it in here.
Who the heck said your not allowed? Your allowed just as everyone else is allowed to disagree, accuse, or say whatever with the forum rules.
Now keep up with us here but in your scenario you never specified the number of survivors so we're going to assume 4. 4 still alive and kicking with 1 gen. In that situation, the killer is left with effectively 2 options. Stay and probably lose the gen without making headway, or chase and probably lose the gen and make progress? To us seems the chase advice is good, but who knows ~ If the killer was playing normal, they'd probably burnt through survivor resources, especially around the 3 gen they were taking so long to do, making a chase seem more and more enticing.
Sooo long answer short. Nope~ he got everything half asleep.
I think if we say it's an issue that a killer prolongs the game too long by doing a 3 gen game, the same should be applied for the survivors doing the same by being overly cautious.
A distinction without a difference. defending the gens is important to make sure the survivors stay in the trial so you can kill them. you can't just ignore them, they are always something you gotta pay attention to. and you can argue that a 3 gen killer also does their job, since the 1 hour game stop kills the survivors.
saying "just don't get in that situation" is not solving the situation. I could say that to a survivor that get slugged all game, but what is that helping?
It is usually a niche case, but as it goes with these, if someone shows it is actually good, others will mimic, and it will become more common to go for it. like how more people did the 3 gen thing after that one video came out.
if that is your impression.
why does a killer need to consider that holding a 3 gen is bad? that is just contradictory to what should be logical. it's like if picking an item from a chest could be bad... it just doesn't compute.
nothing really. it's just that no one asked what it is yet.
"don't get into the situation" is not an answer to the situation. it's just saying "git gud and it won't happen" which doesn't help.
imagine someone said "my house is burning down, what do I do?" and the answer was "don't let your house begin burning down"... at least with this one you can tell what the is issue right?
ok
ok
yes 4. less and taking a long chase is way more excusable.
more likely 2 gens. maybe 3. why would you ever think 1?
making progress is not guaranteed. there's 3 options that I see.
-you can patrol and hope someone will screw up and leave too late, giving a better start on the chase.
-or take a really bad start on a chase, that they maybe will have few resources or will screw up allowing you to get them before the last gen pops.
-or you never even see anyone and have to chose between patrolling again or just looking around hoping to find whoever was around. which is a thing that already happens from time to time (but usually with just 2 survivors left) and from my experience no one likes it.
this to me just creates the same type of game that a 3 gen killer does. one side is going all in on time tactics, the other is not having any fun. which should get the same treatment. if one is bad, both should be.
if you say so.
-
@Caiman said:
Sweeney Todd. Though the character is fictional, he was inspired by urban legends of pie shops killing people and using them as ingredients in mincemeat pies, crossed with an incident about a real-life murderous barber.
and he sings.
it is required. I won't back down on this.
also, pretty sure there is no real life murderous barber. sweeney is just a character in a penny dreadful story from the 19th century.
-
@Venusa said:
I tried super hard to trigger the gen-blocking on PTB with the 8-limit. I dedicated and forced myself to kick gens every chance I got and still it took forever and only happened with 1 gen on a single game. By the time it took to do all that the game was either almost over or I already got a 4k.
wasn't it bugged? I saw somewhere that it was. not sure if they fixed it, I would assume so...
-
huntress.
like, by far.
but I can also see one for hag. if we change her lore so we can have her do hag stuff before she actually becomes the hag.
also Oni, on his murder spree.
maybe slinger during his bounty hunting days.
I can think of more but, for most killers, the best idea for a game (that I have rn) is before they become the characters we know.
but huntress? you can make the entire game about her already as her killer self. and that makes her the perfect candidate for me.
edit: others have said, and I agree. dredge and singularity would work too.
but the issue with dredge is that he would need to be beatable, and that feels weird outside of dbd gameplay.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3627548#Comment_3627548
Maybe they wanted to limit how often you could benefit off 1 totem. Inner healing requires you to find a new totem each time, while if booning worked... each time the killer snuffed it out you could reactivate inner healing.
you could just give it max charges or something.
like, can be activated 6-7 times maximum during a match. be it by tokens going down or it just shutting off after the number of uses
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3627547#Comment_3627547
From what we've gathered your feeling that no matter how much you messed up or the survivors out play you to the point that you proc the 8 limit in a drawn out game, this solution is unfair (presumably to the killer). Further more you claim there's a "simple solution to this" yet never said what it is (as far as I have bothered to look back).
What pulsar basically said is killers can chase and you pointing out an unlikely scenario and spitting favoritism (which so far seem correct).
You then point to the actual topic which pulsar then points out what they think and some advice that boils down to what? Take a chase.
I'm half asleep so I'm genuinely asking, Miss something here?
no.
I said this can lead to a situation where the survivors can drastically prolong the game way more than it needs to because that may actually prove advantageous.
I did. and correct, I have not said what the solution is. because something needs to be recognized as an issue before solutions are needed.
I gave a specific scenario. because that is how thought experiments work. on the given scenarios. and their answer does nothing for it.
please, do say EXACTLY what you think this favoritism is. because I see an issue that happens to affect killers, am I not allowed to talk about it then? Do you think I don't talk about survivor issues aswell?
and the advice is bad given the situation they are in. taking a chase means a race between getting 1 down and the survivors finising the gens.
did you?
-
bloodpoints.
the totem bps gain is usually annoying to get unless you get chased a bunch.
or you run the perk to reset pallets and do it enough times.
-
some silly thing about survivors thinking you don't deserve the power up. it's dumb
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3627535#Comment_3627535
....mate he literally just said to take a chase...
in this comment. not on the previous one.
there is context. try to keep up
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3626316#Comment_3626316
I didn't say to get good, I said to take a chase.
you said to git gud... just added many words to it.
-
I doubt my skills on playing boardgames and remembering too much stuff about media I consume is translating to running around and not dieing. I can also fast read... it has not helped me once when I was in the woods.
I'm getting the random perks that exist to solve game issues.
-
@RFSa09 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625523#Comment_3625523
i think bhvr should use this type of idea to rework nurse, like @Xxjwaynexx said here, not in a way that makes her boring, but a way to make her current power locked behind a different power like the main event, and obviously it's not just limited to nurse, freddy is one of the killers that 100% should have something like this, limiting his insane power to simply ´´survivor sleeps, survivor suffers penalty´´ is quite boring honestly
if you have a specific good idea, by all means, share it. but it does not need to be added to all killers. or even most killers.
what is nurse doing if her blink is locked behind a charge bar? does it stay forever once unlocked?
I can see freddy getting more powerful the longer the trial goes for, but I don't have an idea for it beyond turning him into old freddy with extra stuff.
@Sandt1985 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625513#Comment_3625513
If Nemesis' ultimate isn't a rocket launcher, then it isnt Nemesis' ultimate
is it really nemesis if walls aren't destroyed by him walking into them?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625519#Comment_3625519
A 4v1 at 1 gen is a loss in any patch and it should be massively against the Killer; just like a 2v1 at 3 gens is massively against the Survivors.
If it's a 3v1, take a chase. You can probably get two if you play the unhook correctly.
so you also just have "git gud" to say... then say nothing, it's worth more
-
"we all loved your recent reworks bhvr"
strong words
but yeah... some killers already have those.
do you have specific ideas or?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625346#Comment_3625346
....you realize that it's entirely within the Killers power to idk, chase someone, right?
You are using a hypothetical niche scenario in a deliberate attempt to de-rail the topic. You've responded to a Dev and have somehow managed to not answer any questions and only throw out accusations of favoritism.
not if they wanna pressure the gens.
in this scenario the survivors are leaving very early. so it's a cross map chase. which will lose you the game unless they don't finish the gen and open the gates for some reason...
how often do you take those?
I'm using a hypothetical. yes. that's what a thought experiment is. is the scenario impossible?
I say the scenario is extremely easy to replicate if the survivors chose to. do you disagree?
THIS IS THE TOPIC!!!
It seems like if survivors 3-gen themselves, it's no big deal anymore since they can just play it slow and defensive and burn through the killer's kicks.
This is exactly what many were worried about, as survivors 3-genning themselves and the killer capitalising on it was seen as fair. Now survivors can just do whatever gens they want and don't need to worry.
literally, in the op
so? because it's a dev I have to answer some specific way? that is just silly. I talk to a dev like I would anyone else.
not of favoritism, of ignoring the main issue and focusing on tangents.
but feel free to point out where I said they are saying one isn't an issue. because I'm just bringing focus to it instead of the tangent we were wasting time in.
and I answered the question asked. even if the question was utterly meaningless.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625174#Comment_3625174
I do not mean anything malicious by asking, I am genuinely trying to get a better understanding of what the different expectations are. In the same way different people set a different bar for what they consider a win, something like this (how many mistakes you can make and still expect to come out on top) is also highly subjective.
The reason why I ask is because many people would consider losing a down to a save to be a very crucial mistake that can kill your momentum and heavily influence the rest of the match. These things do happen, you won't always expect someone to be hiding around the corner ready to drop the pallet or go for a flashlight save. But if someone is losing the majority of their downs to saves, you have to question how much of a role those mistakes played in their loss. This is the part that I would like a better understanding of. How many major mistakes should someone reasonably expect to make and still expect to recover from?
We try to make mechanics like these account for ordinary circumstances, but in order to do that, we need to establish what is those ordinary circumstances are.
but who cares about the number of mistakes? how does any number matter here?
it's not relevant.
ultimately, wins who commits the least amount of mistakes (in theory). the number does not matter. and we are by default talking about a match that lasts a long time, so mistakes will happen.
answer these questions: the game reached a state where a 3 gen exists but had nothing to do with the killer planning for it or trying to get it.
the survivors decide to push the gens slowly because they know eventually the killer won't be able to regress the gens. so they know they will win the battle of attrition by playing safe.
is this not basically the same as a 3 gen killer? extending the game way beyond what was intented and only getting progress done when absolutely safe to do so?
why is one an issue that gets a mechanic in game to fight it, but the other not even acknowledged as an issue?
what's worse is that there's a very simple solution to this, it would work alongside the 3 gen solution and neither side would be able to extend the game in such a way... in fact, it would be a detriment. but I guess you rather count mistakes instead.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624827#Comment_3624827
Genuine question so I can understand this POV better: In this scenario where you've downed Survivors near the same generator 8 times, how many times do you think you should be able to make a critical mistake and lose a down to a save (flashlight, pallet, etc.) and still deserve to win the match?
all of them.
if the match is still going, and I manage to beat the team after infinite mistakes on my part. I deserved it, because I overcame those mistakes. do you disagree? is there a number of mistakes where I should just put my controller down because I do not deserve the win anymore?
I find this answer and question you gave in awful taste. It just latches onto what is a tangent, and for what? a jab a someone? and ignores the core of the issue.
the 3 gen solution exists to avoid killers extending the game for way too long.
the solution created a scenario where the survivors can do the same and it might be optimal to do it because of the relative safety of it.
why is one an issue but not the other? shouldn't both be an issue?
I assumed the correct answer would have been "from our testing and data this type of situation seems unlikely but we'll deal with this if it becomes a problem".
but apparently it's "git gud".
-
level? don't know... but here you go for a general idea
https://youtu.be/AO98DbQr4UU?si=_1tKZPJhQwxU5sKM&t=1695feel free to watch the entire thing if you want extra context.
keep i mind this is 1 year old at this point
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618542#Comment_3618542
Trying hard as well, huh?
It is really easy. She is a 4,4m/s Killer. If you have a trap in an area you get a hit. This hit is mostly guaranteed. If you dont have a Trap, you are a 4,4m/s Killer without any power. Great.
and my opinion on how it feels to play her is probably different from yours.
describing the character is not saying how it feels to play the character.
and she does have a power. which is really simple to use in chase. not optimal or desired, but pretending she becomes useless just makes it seem you are not even pretending to wanna have an actual conversation. so why should I reply to you?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618444#Comment_3618444
It is not really hard to get the Hag-perspective out of it. Except if you just dont want to do that.
not at all. unless you wanna assume.
LordGlint is correct, in the video bit all that is talked about is how he feels to play against hag.
and how it feels to play as and against something are not necessarily the same. in fact are rarily the same.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617795#Comment_3617795
Thats a bad example, since random people are at probably 800 elo, and in high MMR, there are no complete beginners but rather vetherans and other strong players.
More acordingly would be if he would go against other GMs of various strenght. He would, as he does, draw many games and probably loose a handful.
But in no way we would win all 100 wins without drawing or loosing. Not even against "bad" Grandmasters. The game is to ballanced for that.
but are you sure "gms" only face "gms" on dbd matchmaking?
that is an important point. because I do not think so. don't think it's possible based on player numbers alone.
to examplify
imagine if magnus went to a 1900-2100ish elo championship. 1000 players. where he would play 100 matches against random opponents in that championship (no swiss pairing).
in those circunstances, would you find it weird if he got a, say, 50 win streak? (if we assume he actually tried to win every game)
now let's assume the top 50 chess players are there aswell. but because the pairing is not swiss, since it assumes everyone is around the same level, magnus only has a 5% of facing any of them in each match.
and if he eventually face one of the gms, he is fully capable of actually winning the game and keeping the streak.
so even with actually quite the sizeable gm count, still entirely possible and even likely he can get the streak.
those don't happen in chess because the elo system actually works there.
TL DR: The type of team that is required to beat the killer is too small of a percentage of the total players that can be paired with said killer. so they can keep the streak going a lot and only really need to have their game on a few times, which they are very capable of having.
-
@TheArbiter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617946#Comment_3617946
And that doesn't surprise me at all, Hag is designed to be a Pub stomper, once you get to higher mmrs tho and have more SWFs she begins to fall apart
Edit: Forgot to mention too that Hag is free on some platforms so many people will have to go against her as some of their first matches in DBD ever which I think might inflate her numbers as well
as someone who played their first killer game as hag... can confirm I did not inflate her numbers at all.
as for OP.
Hag is niche. like Trapper.
we "play defense". (usually)
that playstyle just doesn't appeal to a lot of people.
even if I think Hag is actually very versatile in how she can play, and has been for a long time. most people don't wanna bother.
she has a slightly higher skill floor to be played than most killers, and a pretty high skill ceiling but not very comparable to the big ones. so people who want an easy killer pick someone else, and most people who want the mechanical complexity pick someone else too.
this leaves all 5 of us who like hag. because going "boo!" and slapping people is fun.
there was a time I had make your choice purposefully on lvl1 on her, so it would recover faster. fun times. people just refused to crouch...
that is my theory on her pick rate
-
very simple.
Can I give a second controller to someone sitting next to me to play alongside me?
Do I need to pay attention for more than 2-3 minutes at a time?
if all answers are no. it's not a party game.
So no. dbd is not a party game. just a game you can play casually if you want.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618077#Comment_3618077
Yes, but sometimes, even if the feedback is overwhelmingly negative, even if there isn't some other source of information, developers have the right to not agree. We may think it makes no sense, and maybe it doesn't. But I would rather the developers make controversial decisions the majority do not agree with than to make stupid changes just because the majority want them.
no no. they agreed. in the nerf blog post they said they were very happy with hillbilly and his performance. and then completely changed him for no adequately explained reason.
I rather they make good decisions. couldn't care less if it's controversial or not.
-
@I_CAME said:
The lobby should not even exist to begin with. You should just queue and go straight into the loading screen once you find a match. You'd get games faster and the games would likely be more balanced due to less dodging on both sides. I think the problem is deeper than just killers seeing prestige levels. It's also the fact that they can see hours, items, etc. This should not be a thing. All it does is encourage lobby shopping. The lobby right now is an inconvenience at best. It just makes you have to wait at least 2-3 minutes longer than you would have to if it didn't exist.
and P100s do not get targeted. I have not been successfully tunneled in my last few hundred games and I almost always play on a P100.
and neither should the basement unless it got changed to not be the absolute death trap it currently is. but people usually respond badly to "big" changes like these.
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615915#Comment_3615915
With perks that are specifically designed to counter items, this doesn't make sense. You'd need to overhaul all of them, if the lobby was skipped altogether.
They could however change the lobby, so that killers don't see prestige and can't check the survivors' hours either.
not at all. the perk will still do the same thing. you just won't be sure it will be useful.
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615920#Comment_3615920
I used to think the same, but honestly, the Pregame-Lobby has no purpose anymore except to allow Killers to cherrypick their games. (On a side note - this helps me to avoid a very sweaty streamer. Because apparently a 15k hour Nurse-Main has to dodge a Survivor with 9k hours... :) )...
I used to think that Killers should be able to see Items in the Lobby. However, I dont think that it is important anymore. The information regarding Items is only used to dodge a Lobby, not to prepare any Build. E.g. I only see Franklins during events where Survivors can get Items. This is the only time I see Franklins. And when it comes to things like Lightborn... If someone does not like being blinded, they probably should take Lightborn anyway, because Residual Manifest and Flashbangs exist, both which cannot be prepared for by looking at the Lobby.
And equipping Mangled to counter Medkits is a Joke, considering that Mangled is on almost every game anyway.
At the very least a Killer should not be able to see names and profiles, Killers should not be allowed to check Steam-Profiles for hours or friends. But since Killers dont adjust their Build anyway anymore for Items or similar things, the pregame-lobby should just be removed.
I believe the current actual use is just as a "room" people get into.
you don't wait in queue, you get into a room and wait for the room to fill to start the game.
which should be simple to solve with a "x/5 players ready" on the corner... no need to go to an actual lobby screen
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615915#Comment_3615915
Nah, the lobby has to be there for last-second adjustments.
Franklin's Demise, Lightborn and Sloppy Butcher are perks that can potentially be added / removed from a killer's build depending on what they see before the trial starts.
That is important. It can't just disappear.
I disagree. I think it's very minor and should not be part of the game because it really doesn't matter.
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615930#Comment_3615930
The one thing that still irks me is a lobby with 3/4 flashlights. This is not only an item issue, it telegraphs the attitude and playstyle of the almost certainly SWF party you're going against. It's night and day.
I'm not sure how you could blanket-nerf flashlights in a way that would be a suitable alternative to throwing on Lightborn. Other than perhaps just narrowing the angle at which you can blind the killer. This would make it harder to flashlight save, but shouldn't affect pallet blinds.
Unless you buffed Lightborn to provide some additional effect for when there are zero flashlights in play, so that it becomes a viable perk to run 'just in case'.
This isn't quite the same as 'survivors running Distortion when the killer has no aura reading', because killer perks are worth four times a survivor perk. A killer can't afford to run without a perk, while survivors can often do just fine with zero perks. (Besides, Distortion still has value when no aura perks are in play, it tells you that there are no aura perks in play)
It wouldn't need to be a strong effect, but something that makes running Lightborn as standard better than no perk at all.
Apart from that one scenario, I'd agree that seeing survivors in the lobby isn't necessary.
Franklins/Sloppy are fine, these both have value regardless of which items are in play.
I don't think it's necessary because the effect of lightborn is absolute.
it's basically insurance. and that is why you would run it.