Beardedragon
Beardedragon
About
- Username
- Beardedragon
- Joined
- Visits
- 329
- Last Active
Comments
-
@chemical_reject said:
You are not entitled to a free kill or an achievement.how does he get a "free kill" by chasing down a survivor and.. well killing him?
if you could close the hatch, the survivor could still get to it before the killer does. if he doesnt, he can still finish repairing generators.
the hatch stand off needs to go away, as its, from a mechanic point of view, does not work. how they want to fix it, im not really interested in, just that they do.
-
this seems fitting:
-
@JAZC_CR said:
Just a little joke from the status of the game, don't be madluckily i still get in to games fast lobbying at rank 14
-
@brokedownpalace said:
It's the worst map in the game by far.Backwater swamp is imo the worst stage.
as killer i dont overly insanely much hate meatplant. i cant always find my way around but... yea i hate other stages more.
-
if one leaves the match early they wont see your text.
also depending on the match, maybe they thought it was a bad match.
-
in general games should be longer yes. a person once came with the idea that parts had to be found for the generators to be repaired.
of course an entire rework of balance would have to be made if games were longer though.
i still wish they were.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
Beardedragon said:@Paddy4583 said:
Beardedragon said:
@Orion said: @Beardedragon said: @Master said: @Beardedragon said: @Paddy4583 said: mzombie1431 said: @MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away. Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers, DBD shooter mode enabled or hillbilly distance camping. or hag. distance camping You survivors always manage to make me smile :wink: you survivors? idiot, i play 80% killer so im a big killer main. why cant some of you dolts just realize that even though i play killer, i can still see when we go overboard with the nerfs? i really like the changes and nerfs to survivors this time, but this suggestion is just downright terrible. and yes, thats coming from a killer main. maybe before you consider me a "survivor" you should actually check out my posts in which i defend killers against survivors in different posts. i mention distance camping because ive done it numerous times, specially now with the new hag. you just plant 3 traps around the hooks which will get sprung when they try to rescue. i just teleport back in, kill the guy and rehook him. its not hard. by definition im still camping the hook, just not at it. That's not the definition of camping, at all. You've been brainwashed by entitled Survivors. i have not. whether you want to call it camping or not i dont give a damn. it changes nothing about this suggestion, which is terrible. why in your right mind would you believe that its correct to have 2x faster progression speed on hooks just because you are not standing near the hook? The idea is truly awful, however in a social environment the definitions of words do matter as they have a global meaning and understanding.
On this environment we wouldn’t consider trapping a hook and leaving as camping. That’s why people didn’t understand you and why you were perceived as a survivor.
maybe. but a hillbilly having a clear running line to a hook with a chainsaw that can reach the place in 5 seconds with the chainsaw rush, is still a camper even if he, by definiton, isnt so close to the hooked guy that he could smell their farts.
if he ran normally, the guy would get down, and they could run off, thus he's probably outside of "camping radius" but with the chainsaw? he's gonna get there super fast and gib those guys. he's still camping, but he's outside camping radius.
what do we wanna call that? semi camping?
If anything that’s more what people define as tunnelling, when you rush back to a hook to chase down the unhooked.
The difference is hook control and proximity.
What your saying Is like saying your at your house when your in the same city looking in the direction of your home.rushing back with hillbilly isnt tunneling.
tunneling is where you only go for one survivor.
-
@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@TheXenoborg said:
Beardedragon said:how does one get 99k bloodpoints?
Edit: never mind. you got 49k. i thought the total was total from the match
Double bp offerings, perks like BBQ etc
wait i was wrong in my edit?
did that entire match get 99k? i dont think ive gotten that much before even from a 4k
BP offerings are a magical thing. Use them as much as possible.
yea i get that but even so my yellow ones ive never gotten 99k i think.
i dont have any purple ones tho
-
@TheXenoborg said:
Beardedragon said:how does one get 99k bloodpoints?
Edit: never mind. you got 49k. i thought the total was total from the match
Double bp offerings, perks like BBQ etc
wait i was wrong in my edit?
did that entire match get 99k? i dont think ive gotten that much before even from a 4k
-
how does one get 99k bloodpoints?
Edit: never mind. you got 49k. i thought the total was total from the match
-
i mean there are so few survivors posting in this thread and its pretty clear why. there cant even be a discussion (well there can, but there shouldnt have to), the suggestion is down right terrible. few survivors even want to say its bad, because it should be obvious.
i dont even understand why fellow killers want this happening.
there is no need for a fix to camping, because its called do the generators. if i camp at 5 generators, i will lose.
if i dont lose, its because the survivors have severely ######### up. how ever, that doesnt change that theres a clear counter to camping.
if i camp at 1 generator, it suddenly makes more sense as the guy would maybe get off and escape otherwise, it differs from game to game.
camping doesnt need more fixes, its already fixed.
This fix seems less like an incentive to stop camping, and more of a way to just generally hurt survivors.
and the second suggestion is also bad. why would the progression slowdown because the killer is near? What if the killer catches 2 guys in the basement? that would be strategic to camp so why shouldnt he? they messed up and are now down there, why shouldnt the killer capitalize on that?
-
@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Paddy4583 said:
Beardedragon said:@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Master said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Paddy4583 said:
mzombie1431 said:
@MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away.
Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers,
DBD shooter mode enabled
or hillbilly distance camping. or hag.
distance camping
You survivors always manage to make me smile
you survivors? idiot, i play 80% killer so im a big killer main. why cant some of you dolts just realize that even though i play killer, i can still see when we go overboard with the nerfs? i really like the changes and nerfs to survivors this time, but this suggestion is just downright terrible.
and yes, thats coming from a killer main.
maybe before you consider me a "survivor" you should actually check out my posts in which i defend killers against survivors in different posts.
i mention distance camping because ive done it numerous times, specially now with the new hag. you just plant 3 traps around the hooks which will get sprung when they try to rescue. i just teleport back in, kill the guy and rehook him. its not hard.
by definition im still camping the hook, just not at it.
That's not the definition of camping, at all. You've been brainwashed by entitled Survivors.
i have not. whether you want to call it camping or not i dont give a damn.
it changes nothing about this suggestion, which is terrible.
why in your right mind would you believe that its correct to have 2x faster progression speed on hooks just because you are not standing near the hook?
The idea is truly awful, however in a social environment the definitions of words do matter as they have a global meaning and understanding.
On this environment we wouldn’t consider trapping a hook and leaving as camping. That’s why people didn’t understand you and why you were perceived as a survivor.maybe. but a hillbilly having a clear running line to a hook with a chainsaw that can reach the place in 5 seconds with the chainsaw rush, is still a camper even if he, by definiton, isnt so close to the hooked guy that he could smell their farts.
if he ran normally, the guy would get down, and they could run off, thus he's probably outside of "camping radius" but with the chainsaw? he's gonna get there super fast and gib those guys. he's still camping, but he's outside camping radius.
what do we wanna call that? semi camping?
So you do define "camping" as anything that doesn't allow a free escape. You're either lying about being a Killer main or were brainwashed by Survivors.
you can call me a survivor if you want or you can do your homework so this discussion about what i play can end. im somewhat confident you can go look at what posts ive been delving in by going to my profile, and what comments ive made. ive most definitly not given any leeway to survivors because the game was too survivor biased.
this suggestion is just terrible thats all there is to it.
camping = standing in front of the hook making sure people cant unhook or make it unpleasantly hard anyway.
Theres no difference between a wraith standing there, and a hillbilly standing a bit further away from the hook with his chainsaw ready. the end result is the same or maybe even more in hillbillys favor since he can instadown people.
the reason i called it distance camping is because of the suggestion posted. that because people are away from the hook, it would stop people from camping hooked people. im just pointing out its still somewhat possible to keep people hooked, by nurse blinking back in, hillbilly rushing back with a clear line, putting 5 traps around the hook and porting as hag too and many other options that allows you to get back instantly.
i called it "distance camping" for the sake of this discussion to point out its still possible to keep a guy locked on a hook more or less, even at a distance. since many killers can do that, you can really destroy survivors if their progression speed is increased to double, when many killers have the opportunity to keep it defended even at a distance.
i have not used the term distance camping before, but i DID for the sake of this post.
the suggestion is so bad that quality wise it looks like a survivor main post.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
Beardedragon said:@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Master said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Paddy4583 said:
mzombie1431 said:
@MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away.
Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers,
DBD shooter mode enabled
or hillbilly distance camping. or hag.
distance camping
You survivors always manage to make me smile
you survivors? idiot, i play 80% killer so im a big killer main. why cant some of you dolts just realize that even though i play killer, i can still see when we go overboard with the nerfs? i really like the changes and nerfs to survivors this time, but this suggestion is just downright terrible.
and yes, thats coming from a killer main.
maybe before you consider me a "survivor" you should actually check out my posts in which i defend killers against survivors in different posts.
i mention distance camping because ive done it numerous times, specially now with the new hag. you just plant 3 traps around the hooks which will get sprung when they try to rescue. i just teleport back in, kill the guy and rehook him. its not hard.
by definition im still camping the hook, just not at it.
That's not the definition of camping, at all. You've been brainwashed by entitled Survivors.
i have not. whether you want to call it camping or not i dont give a damn.
it changes nothing about this suggestion, which is terrible.
why in your right mind would you believe that its correct to have 2x faster progression speed on hooks just because you are not standing near the hook?
The idea is truly awful, however in a social environment the definitions of words do matter as they have a global meaning and understanding.
On this environment we wouldn’t consider trapping a hook and leaving as camping. That’s why people didn’t understand you and why you were perceived as a survivor.maybe. but a hillbilly having a clear running line to a hook with a chainsaw that can reach the place in 5 seconds with the chainsaw rush, is still a camper even if he, by definiton, isnt so close to the hooked guy that he could smell their farts.
if he ran normally, the guy would get down, and they could run off, thus he's probably outside of "camping radius" but with the chainsaw? he's gonna get there super fast and gib those guys. he's still camping, but he's outside camping radius.
what do we wanna call that? semi camping?
-
@Master said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Master said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Paddy4583 said:
mzombie1431 said:@MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away.
Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers,
DBD shooter mode enabledor hillbilly distance camping. or hag.
distance camping
You survivors always manage to make me smile
you survivors? idiot, i play 80% killer so im a big killer main. why cant some of you dolts just realize that even though i play killer, i can still see when we go overboard with the nerfs? i really like the changes and nerfs to survivors this time, but this suggestion is just downright terrible.
and yes, thats coming from a killer main.
maybe before you consider me a "survivor" you should actually check out my posts in which i defend killers against survivors in different posts.
i mention distance camping because ive done it numerous times, specially now with the new hag. you just plant 3 traps around the hooks which will get sprung when they try to rescue. i just teleport back in, kill the guy and rehook him. its not hard.
by definition im still camping the hook, just not at it.
Do you understand what a camper is? Its a guy who sets up a tent and waits in there for a pleb to come by and shoot him.
Now I ask you, patroling the gens while "distance camping", how is that possible? Are you carrying your tent with you? Maybe you should call it caravaning
Oh and I dont care how many times you state that you are such a might killermain, you act like a survivor, but in the end that doesnt rlly matter.
Distance camping..... no words
can you not give a damn about the word camping for a moment and focus on the actual discussion? i dont care what you consider camping. you can still camp hooked players with hillbilly by standing a bit away from the hook when you dont patrol generators. he can move so fast and oneshot people so that he doesnt even have to be AT the hook and "camp" it as you consider it.
and thats what OP wants to suggest. that you move a bit away from the hook and POOF 2x progression speed.
and thats terrible because you can still camp with certain killers, like hillbilly that can stand far enough away from the hook progression to occur, and still be close enough to insta gib anyone trying to help.
-
@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Master said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Paddy4583 said:
mzombie1431 said:@MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away.
Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers,
DBD shooter mode enabledor hillbilly distance camping. or hag.
distance camping
You survivors always manage to make me smile
you survivors? idiot, i play 80% killer so im a big killer main. why cant some of you dolts just realize that even though i play killer, i can still see when we go overboard with the nerfs? i really like the changes and nerfs to survivors this time, but this suggestion is just downright terrible.
and yes, thats coming from a killer main.
maybe before you consider me a "survivor" you should actually check out my posts in which i defend killers against survivors in different posts.
i mention distance camping because ive done it numerous times, specially now with the new hag. you just plant 3 traps around the hooks which will get sprung when they try to rescue. i just teleport back in, kill the guy and rehook him. its not hard.
by definition im still camping the hook, just not at it.
That's not the definition of camping, at all. You've been brainwashed by entitled Survivors.
i have not. whether you want to call it camping or not i dont give a damn. i think camping is fine, i dont care what people call it.
it changes nothing about this suggestion, which is terrible.
why in your right mind would you believe that its correct to have 2x faster progression speed on hooks just because you are not standing near the hook?
-
@Master said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Paddy4583 said:
mzombie1431 said:@MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away.
Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers,
DBD shooter mode enabledor hillbilly distance camping. or hag.
distance camping
You survivors always manage to make me smile
you survivors? idiot, i play 80% killer so im a big killer main. why cant some of you dolts just realize that even though i play killer, i can still see when we go overboard with the nerfs? i really like the changes and nerfs to survivors this time, but this suggestion is just downright terrible.
and yes, thats coming from a killer main.
maybe before you consider me a "survivor" you should actually check out my posts in which i defend killers against survivors in different posts.
i mention distance camping because ive done it numerous times, specially now with the new hag. you just plant 3 traps around the hooks which will get sprung when they try to rescue. i just teleport back in, kill the guy and rehook him. its not hard.
by definition im still camping the hook, just not at it.
-
there is no need for a faster hook progression timer just because the killer isnt around.
this is insane.
i would prefer that games were longer in general, not shorter.
-
@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@Orion said:
"Distance camping", lol.well a hillbilly can get the faster progression and just charge in with a chainsaw.
Which isn't camping, unless you define "camping" as "not a free unhook", although I know many Survivors do just that...
i know its not camping, but this way you get the progression buff and you can still keep the guy on the hook safe. how is that fair to survivors?
-
@Orion said:
"Distance camping", lol.well a hillbilly can get the faster progression and just charge in with a chainsaw.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
mzombie1431 said:@MegaWaffle @inkedsoulz. This was entirely to start a discussion and I actually like the idea of speeding up the progression if the killer goes away. It is a decent compromise, maybe not 2 or 3 times. Maybe a step up progression based on distance away.
Huntress and irredentist heads will be 9/10 killers,
DBD shooter mode enabledor hillbilly distance camping. or hag.
-
It's the eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night
And he's watchin' us all with the eye of the tiger -
dunno. i just think that it sounds overpowered as F as a killer main here. it doesnt even sound balanced.
survivors have to instantly stop repairing generators to save their buddies if we do this, there wont even be time to think, because if they do the hooked guy is skewered
-
@Orion said:
@Beardedragon said:
@OakLestat said:
@Beardedragon said:
its a terrible idea. even 2x faster is a death sentence for survivors and im not even a survivor main.
do you know what my favorite strategy with the hag is? hook a guy, put 2 traps near it. now i dont even have to be around to camp hooks, i just teleport back in.
imagine how fast i would skewer survivors if it was 2x speed.
im sorry but increasing progression speed is a terrible idea for survivors.
You are right that Hag makes that an issue. But they could disable that for Hag if she has a trap within 10 meters of the hook.
I would be fine with the opposite as well that while a killer is within 10-15 meters of the hook (and not in a chase) then the time would go half as fast. Although perks like Insidious would have to counter act that effect.
no. never, ever. increased progression speed because the killer isnt near?
absolutely terrible.
there is already an incentive called: if you camp, you lose.
if he doesnt move away from that 1 guy he hooked at 5 gens, he will lose. unless the survivors [BAD WORD] up big time, then he might not lose.
we're not going to punish survivors, because the killer is doing what he can to win, which is patrol generators. thats just silly.
I find that camping works more often than not. Camping made me go from a 1k game into a 4k game at rank 12 or something.
ive found that long distance camping helps as the hag. i can patrol generators and teleport to my traps at the hook when they are triggered (its super effective) but regular camping? nah. if the survivors have a few braincells they know im going to lose. and i often do when i camp at 5 generators, hence why i dont do that.
-
@OakLestat said:
Well if you haven't noticed survivors are pretty sure that campers win all the time. Otherwise they would be happy that the killer is dumb enough to camp and ask them to do it more for easy wins. It is a reality of our player base.survivors mess up, because many of them play SWF and dont like their mate on the hook. many that camps does it, because they know that survivors WILL come for their buddies. then they're right there to hit and slug.
killers dont win by camping, killers win because some survivors are idiots, and bumrush to hooks that are being camped rather than doing generators.
its like a killer running towards a downed survivor while looking a survivor in the eyes with a flashlight, and THEN proceeds to pick up the downed guy.
i mean sure you can do that, but you're gonna get stunned. in the same way with camping. you're gonna win if you do generators, but if you all swarm to the hook like the killer wants? yea you're gonna lose. doesnt mean you couldnt have won, in fact, odds was stacked against the killer, but you just aided him.
-
@OakLestat said:
@Beardedragon said:
its a terrible idea. even 2x faster is a death sentence for survivors and im not even a survivor main.
do you know what my favorite strategy with the hag is? hook a guy, put 2 traps near it. now i dont even have to be around to camp hooks, i just teleport back in.
imagine how fast i would skewer survivors if it was 2x speed.
im sorry but increasing progression speed is a terrible idea for survivors.
You are right that Hag makes that an issue. But they could disable that for Hag if she has a trap within 10 meters of the hook.
I would be fine with the opposite as well that while a killer is within 10-15 meters of the hook (and not in a chase) then the time would go half as fast. Although perks like Insidious would have to counter act that effect.
no. never, ever. increased progression speed because the killer isnt near?
absolutely terrible.
there is already an incentive called: if you camp, you lose.
if he doesnt move away from that 1 guy he hooked at 5 gens, he will lose. unless the survivors ######### up big time, then he might not lose.
we're not going to punish survivors, because the killer is doing what he can to win, which is patrol generators. thats just silly.
-
@inkedsoulz said:
@Beardedragon said:
@OakLestat said:
@inkedsoulz said:
Why not instead of punishing the killer for staying at the hook, we reward him for leaving the hook.
If killer stays at the hook, normal progression speed.
If killer leaves hook, x3 hook progression speed.Like this, if the killer wants kills fast, he better leaves the hook and not camp.
No killer will camp if they implement this
easy camping fix.I think this is a great idea. Probably more like 2x speed while the killer is at least 24 or 30 meters away from the hook. But a great idea that would promote a quicker back and forth.
its a terrible idea. even 2x faster is a death sentence for survivors and im not even a survivor main.
do you know what my favorite strategy with the hag is? hook a guy, put 2 traps near it. now i dont even have to be around to camp hooks, i just teleport back in.
imagine how fast i would skewer survivors if it was 2x speed.
im sorry but increasing progression speed is a terrible idea for survivors.
Well they can just make it so it applies to certain killers and not others.
Nurse/billy/hag have no reason to camp since they can just teleport or get back really quick due to their secondary skill.
So just make it so this thing/change applies to all killers except those that have special mobility skills.
yes except no mechanic is in the game that allows such things for one killer, but not the rest.
it would be like making it so some killers cant vault, and others can. it doesnt exist so far. not as far as i know.
but even if it did, and trust me, im not a survivor main, this would suck ASS for a survivor. faster progression on hooks because the killer is actually trying to win the game by patrolling generators as he's supposed to? no way. no bloody way.
there needs to be no incentive at all. killers will not win, if they camp, unless its a strategic camping with 2 people on hooks near each other. then it might make sense.
-
@inkedsoulz said:
@Beardedragon said:
@inkedsoulz said:
@mzombie1431 said:
Here is an idea for a change in the game, I know this is gonna catch alot of flack by player that play like this but let face it if you depend on tunneling and camping you're pretty much ######### at the game anyways so those opinions won't bother me.
I think there should be per say a timer for in which a killer can't hook a survivor again with out a penalty to the killer or no penalty to the survior. My idea is basically if a killer downs a survivor immediately off hook and then re-hooks that same survivor it should be counted at the previous hook not a second if done in a certain time frame. This would deter farming and tuneling. It wouldn't eliminate it but it would give survivors a weapon against this type of play.
Second Camping: I think that a system should be in place that if a killer doesn't break a certain radius , can't be the terror radius cause its different from killer to killer, that hook degradation for the survivor is stopped or dramatically slowed down. The emblem system wasn't enough to stop this type of gameplay mostly because survivors need to be altruistic to build that emblem to pip. 1 survivor save ,1 gen, 9min alive= 1 pip 9 or pretty close. No save pretty much no pip just a safety. This really won't hurt the good players that play good and don't need to camp. It would be just forcing players that play a ######### style of play to get better.
This is is just my opinion and I know that it may not be liked by some, but its just an opinion and idea.Why not instead of punishing the killer for staying at the hook, we reward him for leaving the hook.
If killer stays at the hook, normal progression speed.
If killer leaves hook, x3 hook progression speed.Like this, if the killer wants kills fast, he better leaves the hook and not camp.
No killer will camp if they implement this
easy camping fix.that doesnt even help ANYONE.
3x progression speed for the hook? are you kidding me, survivors would be SKEWERED left and right if you play as the hag. put 4 traps around the hook and you can teleport back anytime you want MEANWHILE you are out the hooks range so the survivors gets almost insta mauled by the hook and killed in what, 30 seconds?
please think about your suggestions before you post them. they help neither the killers, nor survivors. in all honesty they most definitly dont help the survivor.
right now, killers have a good incentive to not camp, its called: you bloody lose if you do". (under normal circumstances that is)
3x hook progression speed because im not near the hook? thats insanely over powered for killers.
Its just an idea, ofc the devs can decide on the progression speed, they can even decide making it like the further the killer is, the faster the progression becomes, and balance it around the hag trap teleport range and other stuff.
dude, so far the same rules applies to all killers. the only thing that varies from killers is their ability as well as their killer radius and movement speed, and other smaller things. nothing huge.
balancing out that you have faster progression speed but not when hag traps are near or bear traps are near? thats probably never going to happen. and even if it did, faster progression speed for survivors is not balanced at all. the time it takes now is fine. if someone gets hooked far away from the generator im repairing? he's going to be half dead by the time i get to him.
-
@OakLestat said:
@inkedsoulz said:
Why not instead of punishing the killer for staying at the hook, we reward him for leaving the hook.
If killer stays at the hook, normal progression speed.
If killer leaves hook, x3 hook progression speed.Like this, if the killer wants kills fast, he better leaves the hook and not camp.
No killer will camp if they implement this
easy camping fix.I think this is a great idea. Probably more like 2x speed while the killer is at least 24 or 30 meters away from the hook. But a great idea that would promote a quicker back and forth.
its a terrible idea. even 2x faster is a death sentence for survivors and im not even a survivor main.
do you know what my favorite strategy with the hag is? hook a guy, put 2 traps near it. now i dont even have to be around to camp hooks, i just teleport back in.
imagine how fast i would skewer survivors if it was 2x speed.
im sorry but increasing progression speed is a terrible idea for survivors.
-
@inkedsoulz said:
@mzombie1431 said:
Here is an idea for a change in the game, I know this is gonna catch alot of flack by player that play like this but let face it if you depend on tunneling and camping you're pretty much ######### at the game anyways so those opinions won't bother me.
I think there should be per say a timer for in which a killer can't hook a survivor again with out a penalty to the killer or no penalty to the survior. My idea is basically if a killer downs a survivor immediately off hook and then re-hooks that same survivor it should be counted at the previous hook not a second if done in a certain time frame. This would deter farming and tuneling. It wouldn't eliminate it but it would give survivors a weapon against this type of play.
Second Camping: I think that a system should be in place that if a killer doesn't break a certain radius , can't be the terror radius cause its different from killer to killer, that hook degradation for the survivor is stopped or dramatically slowed down. The emblem system wasn't enough to stop this type of gameplay mostly because survivors need to be altruistic to build that emblem to pip. 1 survivor save ,1 gen, 9min alive= 1 pip 9 or pretty close. No save pretty much no pip just a safety. This really won't hurt the good players that play good and don't need to camp. It would be just forcing players that play a ######### style of play to get better.
This is is just my opinion and I know that it may not be liked by some, but its just an opinion and idea.Why not instead of punishing the killer for staying at the hook, we reward him for leaving the hook.
If killer stays at the hook, normal progression speed.
If killer leaves hook, x3 hook progression speed.Like this, if the killer wants kills fast, he better leaves the hook and not camp.
No killer will camp if they implement this
easy camping fix.that doesnt even help ANYONE.
3x progression speed for the hook? are you kidding me, survivors would be SKEWERED left and right if you play as the hag. put 4 traps around the hook and you can teleport back anytime you want MEANWHILE you are out the hooks range so the survivors gets almost insta mauled by the hook and killed in what, 30 seconds?
please think about your suggestions before you post them. they help neither the killers, nor survivors. in all honesty they most definitly dont help the survivor.
right now, killers have a good incentive to not camp, its called: you bloody lose if you do". (under normal circumstances that is)
3x hook progression speed because im not near the hook? thats insanely over powered for killers.
-
@mzombie1431 said:
Here is an idea for a change in the game, I know this is gonna catch alot of flack by player that play like this but let face it if you depend on tunneling and camping you're pretty much ######### at the game anyways so those opinions won't bother me.
I think there should be per say a timer for in which a killer can't hook a survivor again with out a penalty to the killer or no penalty to the survior. My idea is basically if a killer downs a survivor immediately off hook and then re-hooks that same survivor it should be counted at the previous hook not a second if done in a certain time frame. This would deter farming and tuneling. It wouldn't eliminate it but it would give survivors a weapon against this type of play.
Second Camping: I think that a system should be in place that if a killer doesn't break a certain radius , can't be the terror radius cause its different from killer to killer, that hook degradation for the survivor is stopped or dramatically slowed down. The emblem system wasn't enough to stop this type of gameplay mostly because survivors need to be altruistic to build that emblem to pip. 1 survivor save ,1 gen, 9min alive= 1 pip 9 or pretty close. No save pretty much no pip just a safety. This really won't hurt the good players that play good and don't need to camp. It would be just forcing players that play a ######### style of play to get better.
This is is just my opinion and I know that it may not be liked by some, but its just an opinion and idea.this is just stupid and takes away the fact that survivors arent supposed to BUMRUSH hooks when the killer is there, BECAUSE OF THE FACT that he can clearly just re-hook the same guy and he's closer to dying.
i cant tell you how many times ive wanted to scream in to my monitor playing as survivor: DONT ######### UNHOOK ME NOW! because the killer is nearby.
i get unhooked, i get raped trying to run, and im back on, now one step closer to death.
survivors needs to be better at figuring out when to unhooking and not, its part of the game and part of the balance.
if you couldnt hook the same place you could legit just bumrush if you know the next hook is further away than the killer can carry. you can just wiggle your way out then.
your suggestion is terrible.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Beardedragon said:
regardless its been changed, and for many people, the better.flashlights remain useful specially at pallets, and can still be used to save people from hooks.
If survivors blind at pallets they are helping the killer by not getting to the next tile quicker.
not if your intention is to stall. you mask where you go for longer when blinding with a flashlight, than if you just let him smash the pallet as you run off.
so flashlights hide you better. or you could just purposefully stall the killer for some time running from pallet loop to palletloop with the flashlight.
break pallet + stun takes longer to recover from than just breaking a pallet. thats time the killer isnt spending hunting anyone else or searching gens.
-
regardless its been changed, and for many people, the better.
flashlights remain useful specially at pallets, and can still be used to save people from hooks.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Orion said:
@only1biggs said:
@Beardedragon said:
it werent just bad killers who were flashlighted when trying to pick up targets.im glad the pickup timers were reduced.
Sorry dude. Bad, new or made a mistake in that moment.
Perfect excuse to dismiss any possibility that you might just be wrong. Circular logic FTW!
If I'm wrong I happily admit it. This is an occasion where I am not wrong.
people who believe in vampires also dont believe they are wrong.
but it doesnt mean they are right.
same with flat earth believers.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Beardedragon said:
it werent just bad killers who were flashlighted when trying to pick up targets.im glad the pickup timers were reduced.
Sorry dude. Bad, new or made a mistake in that moment.
how are you a bad killer if you try to pick up one guy and 2 others are nearby with flashlights?
1 guy with a flashlight i can get far enough away from me so i can pick up without being blinded completely, but not 2.
and i cant always look at a wall when picking up people if there isnt one. if your answer is "you are bad and should feel bad" which it is, then you dont, either like many others, have the faintest idea about what is balanced and what isnt.
the pick up timer is fine, and its still perfectly possible to do flashlight saves now.
-
it werent just bad killers who were flashlighted when trying to pick up targets.
im glad the pickup timers were reduced.
-
@Science_Guy said:
@Beardedragon said:
@AsePlayer said:
@Why_Are_You_Salty said:
Just stop I'm sick of seeing salty survivor mains upset because the devs are nerfing survivors too much. All they're doing is making it fair for the killer half of you rely on crutches to get out such as DS and other OP perks well think about what that does to the killer. It makes them want to rage quit and smash something if they're bullied by toxic SWF and anyone in general. This game has been going in the right direction ever since BHVR broke away from Starbreeze. As someone who plays both killer and survivor when I play survivor do I like the changes maybe not, but do I agree with them yes everyone should have fun in this game. The only thing I think should be adjusted after the DS and Hatch nerf is the flashlights or addons for the flashlight. Survivors shouldn't have an extra chance unless they're bad at the game.Git gud.
Also Killers have their crutches too, but you seem to only want to focus on the survivor ones. Totally not biased I see.
maybe he focuses on them because they are the ones complaining atm? look at the steam reviews from yesterday
Where was he the months before the patch dropped when it was killers doing all the complaining? Not around? That wouldn't surprise me. Anyone who's played this game for more than a few patch cycles should know one or both killers and survivors will ALWAYS be complaining about nerfs.
Always.complaining isnt bad, if you provide valid balance arguments for why you complain.
but look at the steam review. 1 day in to the patch and survivors have flooded it with negativity.
i have seen very very few survivors give any real valid reason as to why this is a bad patch except they dislike that its now harder.
-
@AsePlayer said:
@Why_Are_You_Salty said:
Just stop I'm sick of seeing salty survivor mains upset because the devs are nerfing survivors too much. All they're doing is making it fair for the killer half of you rely on crutches to get out such as DS and other OP perks well think about what that does to the killer. It makes them want to rage quit and smash something if they're bullied by toxic SWF and anyone in general. This game has been going in the right direction ever since BHVR broke away from Starbreeze. As someone who plays both killer and survivor when I play survivor do I like the changes maybe not, but do I agree with them yes everyone should have fun in this game. The only thing I think should be adjusted after the DS and Hatch nerf is the flashlights or addons for the flashlight. Survivors shouldn't have an extra chance unless they're bad at the game.Git gud.
Also Killers have their crutches too, but you seem to only want to focus on the survivor ones. Totally not biased I see.
maybe he focuses on them because they are the ones complaining atm? look at the steam reviews from yesterday
-
@Mrrgle_the_Mediocre said:
@Beardedragon said:
hey guys.before the patch i had only ever played the hag once. i didnt like her due to her slow speed, and the fact that it took me ages to plant traps. while her speed is the same, it feels less hindered by the fact that the trap setting is faster, and i believe also the teleport range. anyway, thats not the issue.
the thing simply is, ive had maybe 3 matches with the hag since then (and i really like the changes) but im actually not 100% sure about what the trap activation does to the survivor.
so trap activates, and out comes a clone of me that stands still i can teleport to. but what does the clone do to the survivors? i am unable to figure that one out and the description doesnt help.
ive seen survivors turn 180 degrese and run the other way, and ive seen people run the same way almost not being fazed almost. because i dont feel like ive consistently seen the same thing im just unable to figure out exactly what my clones do to survivors.
do they turn 180 degreese around due to them getting a legit jump scare? or is the mechanic that it makes them go back and some people just turn back again very fast?
can someone elaborate please.
When a trap triggers, a Survivor will scream, revealing their position, and their screen will lock onto the trap for 0.1 seconds before being able to look away again. So those 180s you see happen are when a Survivor runs straight over a trap and their screen completely looks behind them.
i see. because ive seen people jump over a pallet, triggering a trap, and then they vaulted back over the trap. i was uncertain if they were dumb enough to do it them selves or it was a mechanic. i thought it sounded or looked like a mechanic
-
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
If you think i should adept please jump off a cliff. If you think adepting makes a game fun please hang yourself.
This game is not fun anymore. period.Speak for yourself, man. I play mostly survivor and I love most of the changes. If you don't want to adapt, then why don't you just leave and do the rest of the playerbase a favor?
I do want to play this game but it seems the devs don't. I'm expressing my opinions on these updates. I thought it was an important part of updates and changes?
you express an opinion, but not a valid opinion because you dont explain why the changes are destroying the balance of the game.
you say you dont like them and they ruin the game. that doesnt really say much does it. use some more words.
because honestly, most others agree that the changes are very good for the balance of the game.
-
@fcc2014 said:
@Beardedragon said:
well thats how i got it too. im not too keen on being rank 15 and fighting better guys yet, because i have a huge amount of killers and survivors that are honestly, level 1 and 2. the ranking system dont give a ######### if they are that low. i have zero perks on those guys or addons.
Someone a few weeks mentioned that killers should have different rank for instance you main say the pig she is rank 15. You have invested time in her and have perks and a comfort level fair enough. You don't play hag she has nothing but she got a buff you want to play her, it is a lot harder to play her with almost nothing. Rank could be tied to your killer. Would people exploit it i'm sure they would but maybe you find out you are better with a certain killer. It would incentive's people trying something new and leaving their comfort zone and not getting punished for it.
thats how i think it should be.
i mean what fair is it to play the level 2 trapper versus 4 end game survivors with all the perks they need.
-
@fcc2014 said:
@Beardedragon said:
once you go level 15, you cant go lower? i think i heard something like that but im unable to figure out if its true or not.im rank 16 atm and i dont really wanna get in to the end game meta, i already have plenty of people in my own games with purple perks when i dont have that. (maybe a few)
Unless you quit before the match ends you will get to 15. 15 in a few days will be the new 20 and potentially the most toxic rank in DBD. survivors will de-rank to abuse killers and Killers will de-rank to not play better survivors. Some are reporting long wait times in lobbies the closer to rank 1 they get either the devs broke match making again or a large pool of players decided not to play. Either way it isn't a good outcome. People are destroying the game in reviews. Not sure if there is a parallel between the two but i would love to see a realtime measurement on all platforms as to how many active players in the 72/48/24 hours.
so.. if i was rank 20 and got to rank 19, could i go back to 19?
and if im rank 15, i cannot go back to 16?> @fcc2014 said:
@Beardedragon said:
so.. if i was rank 20 and got to rank 19, could i go back to 20?
and if im rank 15, i cannot go back to 16?
I believe so. I read the patch notes and that is how i interpreted it. At least not until the end of season on the 13th. Someone else maybe can answer this better i haven't played in several days.
well thats how i got it too. im not too keen on being rank 15 and fighting better guys yet, because i have a huge amount of killers and survivors that are honestly, level 1 and 2. the ranking system dont give a ######### if they are that low. i have zero perks on those guys or addons.
-
@Twix said:
Isn’t this game meant for adults? Adults should know better than to listen to what people say online lol. Please move on and mature a bit?that makes no sense. clearly when you push the report button, theres a category for flaming. its right there. so even if its not "their job" which it is, its their game, they are responsible for it working which it doesnt when ppl flame constantly, then they've taken it upon themselves to make it their job.
as long as its a category, then yes, its their job. why would there even be a report system for chat abuse if they themselves didnt think, it was their job?
i believe that they do want to do something about it, but balance issues just take the first place. implementing a mute system is probably second.
its all about how the world views this game too. right now, everyone knows the community is toxic as #########. look at the reviews after 1 day of a big patch that wasnt in one sides favor. even i knew it was toxic before i bought the game.
developers will want a good PR for their game, and having a ######### community is not helping them.
also, why would Rainbow Six or any other multiplayer game have a report system if its not their job?
People will not want to be excessively flamed, or they will quit the game. the developers must take upon the mantle of muting toxic players, or their own game wont be played as much as it potentially could.
-
i see. but are you happy with the changes? do you feel they are balanced?
-
@only1biggs said:
@Doom_Punk said:
@only1biggs said:
@Doom_Punk said:
I love it. Survivor babies will complain that flashlight saves are gone but I've hit a few already.It's a very good QOL change. Making some animations faster is always nice.
Against idiot killers maybe. There's no way otherwise. But then you saying something so stupid is par for the course at this stage.
*Circle of life music plays soothingly in the background
You acting as if they're impossible is what I expected cause you think they take skill, lolol.
If he's not against a wall they're still possible. Git gud.
LOL as I said..only against potato killers. You're the one who is always here complaining about stuff, take your own advice and get better.
you kind of complain too, and with a touch of "sass" to it as well. you even brought some sass with you this time too.
-
@fcc2014 said:
@Beardedragon said:
once you go level 15, you cant go lower? i think i heard something like that but im unable to figure out if its true or not.im rank 16 atm and i dont really wanna get in to the end game meta, i already have plenty of people in my own games with purple perks when i dont have that. (maybe a few)
Unless you quit before the match ends you will get to 15. 15 in a few days will be the new 20 and potentially the most toxic rank in DBD. survivors will de-rank to abuse killers and Killers will de-rank to not play better survivors. Some are reporting long wait times in lobbies the closer to rank 1 they get either the devs broke match making again or a large pool of players decided not to play. Either way it isn't a good outcome. People are destroying the game in reviews. Not sure if there is a parallel between the two but i would love to see a realtime measurement on all platforms as to how many active players in the 72/48/24 hours.
so.. if i was rank 20 and got to rank 19, could i go back to 20?
and if im rank 15, i cannot go back to 16?
-
@Vietfox said:
Enjoy the "balance" xDman how angry are you over balance changes. i see you making sassy or angry comments about it everywhere.
the balance changes were good, in all honesty. arent they good? i think they are.
-
@Vietfox said:
PinkEricka said:I’m sorry to tell you but reporting doesn’t work. Devs do not care about these types of survivors at all. If you try to email them about it, they will just have a robot telling you to use the in-game report system.
I heavily advise you to block and ban these people from your stream so they can’t come back and do that.
Same with killers cheating
yes same with killers cheating.
or killers being toxic.
or survivors cheating.
or survivors being toxic.
we get that all people can be toxic and cheat, but in all honesty, its a bigger occurring issue among survivors than killers.
this report system is for everyone, and should be made better to make the game experience better as whole.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
That's why you have a chat mod ready to airlock people from your stream the moment they act up.My own mod lives for those moments when I say those words. "Okay dude, go ahead and airlock this bozo"
they should just be banned from the chat for some time, or not be allowed to play for some time for toxicity.
and if its recurring, then they'll get a perma-ban.
-
once you go level 15, you cant go lower? i think i heard something like that but im unable to figure out if its true or not.
im rank 16 atm and i dont really wanna get in to the end game meta, i already have plenty of people in my own games with purple perks when i dont have that. (maybe a few)
-
@M4I3X said:
Its not the devs task to show the players how to behave .. if you are streaming or just using the internet you need to accept that there are people that likes to insult other persons and if that hurts so you or your wife so bad then is the internet not the right place for you.Its hard but you need to accept that and there is no way anyone can change that.
well. it kind of is their task. its their game, thats why there is a report system even though it clearly doesnt work.