Blueberry
Blueberry
About
- Username
- Blueberry
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@lukeydrew said:
@Blueberry said:
@Neska said:
The only thing I learned playing against Legion, is that I'm healing myself 24/7 and it's annoying af.. I thought Spirit and Nurse were bad because they down you faster than you can look, but Legion is just as annoying as Freddy and his dreamworld and doc with his madness (doc isn't that bad tho) Besides that, we had some games where more people escaped and some where nobody escaped so farYou shouldn't even be healing, there's no reason to, his deep wound won't down you.
Uhm yes it does?
Deep Wounds does not down you. He literally has to M1 with a normal attack...while moving at hag speed...
For him to down you actually with Feral Frenzy he has to hit you at least 4 times...that includes the fatigue time after hits and his power fully recovering multiple times to be used again...
-
He's terribly designed. I'd be embarrassed if I had released Legion in the state he's in, it's sad. Like you said, even Freddy is better and that's pathetic. At least Freddy moves at normal speed and doesn't need 4 hits to down someone.
-
@Neska said:
The only thing I learned playing against Legion, is that I'm healing myself 24/7 and it's annoying af.. I thought Spirit and Nurse were bad because they down you faster than you can look, but Legion is just as annoying as Freddy and his dreamworld and doc with his madness (doc isn't that bad tho) Besides that, we had some games where more people escaped and some where nobody escaped so farYou shouldn't even be healing, there's no reason to, his deep wound won't down you.
-
Well tbf it's only been a year and a half since they admitted totem spawns need work...give them some time guys....lol
-
"The Splinter"
-
Legion is legit trash. He doesn't need just small tweaks, he needs massive buffs if not normal killer movespeed. I would seriously put him below Freddy, at least Freddy doesn't need 4 hits to down someone and actually has full move speed.
-
Yeah since the dlc dropped the que's are ridiculous.
-
@Brady said:
@Blueberry said:
@Brady said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.I hate hearing this.
You know, I forcefully have to find the Killer and initiate a chase JUST so I can pip. It's frustrating and annoying, and even more annoying when you're either being chased all game, OR doing a M1/RB Simulator all game.
This whole "you have to try to depip" stuff is so inaccurate. If you curbstomp a bad killer, you will most likely safety pip. Sometimes even depip if nobody gets hooked.
Emblem system is broken period. Always thought the point system (Victory Cube) was better.
Sorry but you're just wrong here. Even if the killer is trash and you just M1 and get out, you will still pip. I don't ever actively seek the killer out and have never had issues pipping, I'm not sure where you're getting this.
Everything I said is accurate, you will not pip as a survivor if all 4 of your mates completely destroy a Killer and nobody gets downed. Not saying you will always blackpip, but you won't get higher than a safety pip unless you get Ird. Lightbringer (Objective pts.) and a decent chaser. Which, can be hard to get if the killer sucks so bad he can't even find you lol
and most times this leads me to forcing chasing, so I can pip, and I don't enjoy having to force them and say to the Killer, "Hey, I'm over here. Helllllo!!!!" just so I can get points.
While this is obviously not the scenario everytime, it does happen. You can't say it doesn't.
Well just safety pip, sure. However, how often does this happen? Hardly ever. That scenario is an exception, not the norm. This happens once maybe every 15 games.
-
@Brady said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.I hate hearing this.
You know, I forcefully have to find the Killer and initiate a chase JUST so I can pip. It's frustrating and annoying, and even more annoying when you're either being chased all game, OR doing a M1/RB Simulator all game.
This whole "you have to try to depip" stuff is so inaccurate. If you curbstomp a bad killer, you will most likely safety pip. Sometimes even depip if nobody gets hooked.
Emblem system is broken period. Always thought the point system (Victory Cube) was better.
Sorry but you're just wrong here. Even if the killer is trash and you just M1 and get out, you will still pip. I don't ever actively seek the killer out and have never had issues pipping, I'm not sure where you're getting this.
-
Only with shards. They'll get actually money support when we see actual changes that aren't laughable. What was the point of the PTB when they basically just ignored everything wrong with it that people pointed out.
-
@Onionthing said:
Who has a stockpile of prayer beads anyway? I dont ...tbh Im sitting on 80 of them, plus another 30 black wards...lol
-
I'd rather just actually get Krampus. A Krampus wraith skin would mean we definitely weren't going to get Krampus and I think Krampus would actually fit dbd quite well.
-
Yeah we've been saying this for years and they said it's being worked on for years. Slight exaggeration but you get my point.
-
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.not true you know how many games i get tunneled from the start or the killer if using some perks that make the game impossible with my stupid teammates just to lose a pip
Speaking generally here, not exceptions to the norm.
to get a safety pip you have to do around 1 gen, get chased for a round a minute, and unhook a survivor. Just saying, but its extremely hard to do that when i have no time for all these things
Those are extremely small requirements, the vast majority of players are meeting that unless you got outplayed very hard or just face camped.
the second one is about as close as you can get, basically take everything you can that killers do to make the match less fun for survivors, and thats the reasoning
))))))))Idk, i just have a hard time believing the main reason is the killers fault. I don't pip as survivor like 1 out of every MAYBE 12 games, if even that. I think there's outplay going on here.
when i say the killers fault, i mean everything from their perks to addons to their playstyle.
but its also mostly because of ######### teammates that crouch across the whole map instead of helping you on the hook
I mean you're basically saying it is indeed not a killer issue. It's low rank bad survivor teammates and yalls inability to hit ruin skill checks that hindered you. Even bad teammates you can make sure you aren''t found first so at least you pip. These are player skill issues preventing your pipping.
i can hit skill checks trust me, more than half of the time its because im found first and i have no time to do anything
So if you were found first that was a mistake on you. That's also meaning you went down and didn't lose the killer as well. If we're talking about a game where you got facecamped that's also an extreme minority of games.
-
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.not true you know how many games i get tunneled from the start or the killer if using some perks that make the game impossible with my stupid teammates just to lose a pip
Speaking generally here, not exceptions to the norm.
to get a safety pip you have to do around 1 gen, get chased for a round a minute, and unhook a survivor. Just saying, but its extremely hard to do that when i have no time for all these things
Those are extremely small requirements, the vast majority of players are meeting that unless you got outplayed very hard or just face camped.
the second one is about as close as you can get, basically take everything you can that killers do to make the match less fun for survivors, and thats the reasoning
))))))))Idk, i just have a hard time believing the main reason is the killers fault. I don't pip as survivor like 1 out of every MAYBE 12 games, if even that. I think there's outplay going on here.
when i say the killers fault, i mean everything from their perks to addons to their playstyle.
but its also mostly because of ######### teammates that crouch across the whole map instead of helping you on the hook
I mean you're basically saying it is indeed not a killer issue. It's low rank bad survivor teammates and yalls inability to hit ruin skill checks that hindered you. Even bad teammates you can make sure you aren''t found first so at least you pip. These are player skill issues preventing your pipping.
-
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.not true you know how many games i get tunneled from the start or the killer if using some perks that make the game impossible with my stupid teammates just to lose a pip
Speaking generally here, not exceptions to the norm.
to get a safety pip you have to do around 1 gen, get chased for a round a minute, and unhook a survivor. Just saying, but its extremely hard to do that when i have no time for all these things
Those are extremely small requirements, the vast majority of players are meeting that unless you got outplayed very hard or just face camped.
the second one is about as close as you can get, basically take everything you can that killers do to make the match less fun for survivors, and thats the reasoning
))))))))Idk, i just have a hard time believing the main reason is the killers fault. I don't pip as survivor like 1 out of every MAYBE 12 games, if even that. I think there's outplay going on here.
-
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.not true you know how many games i get tunneled from the start or the killer if using some perks that make the game impossible with my stupid teammates just to lose a pip
Speaking generally here, not exceptions to the norm.
to get a safety pip you have to do around 1 gen, get chased for a round a minute, and unhook a survivor. Just saying, but its extremely hard to do that when i have no time for all these things
Those are extremely small requirements, the vast majority of players are meeting that unless you got outplayed very hard or just face camped.
-
@MyNamePete said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.not true you know how many games i get tunneled from the start or the killer if using some perks that make the game impossible with my stupid teammates just to lose a pip
Speaking generally here, not exceptions to the norm.
-
@Peanits said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion "but the thing I'm talking about were about a dozen or so accounts all created from the same IP around the same time that would follow certain people around and mass LOL their posts" quoted from Peanits. I'm sorry that you refuse to understand data and facts.I have also clarified since that this was just one instance, and there have been other instances where the exact same thing happened.
So what type of rough number would we be looking at then?
-
@Master said:
@Blueberry said:
Some of that doesn't add up. You have to actively try extremely hard not to pip as a survivor.I still remember some game where I roleplayed as locker dwight and didnt do ANYTHING, yet I blackpiped because I escaped without being downed
Exactly lol
-
@Orion "but the thing I'm talking about were about a dozen or so accounts all created from the same IP around the same time that would follow certain people around and mass LOL their posts" quoted from Peanits. I'm sorry that you refuse to understand data and facts.
-
They had 12 people out of 35k registered forum users create multiple accounts to "lol" people. So because of those 12 people (.034%) of the forum registered player base, everyone gets punished.
-
@willcenx said:
Environment does not react to her phasing, which means that grass and other things don't move while she is walking on them using her power. You can't say if she is coming or not at all if she is using that addon. She can come to you and grab you wherever she wants, and you can do literally nothing about it. Unless you are an extrasensory.This is absolutely incorrect. The environment entirely does react with her during phasing. You can see grass and everything. Also on top of this you can simply run Premonition or Spine Chill to know she is coming. Iron Will also just counters her in general.
-
He just needs multistalk back and not have a limit of stalk per person, that's all he needs really.
-
@Peanits said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
It was more common than you think. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to multiple forumgoers.
Never said I was using myself as a sample. I'm active enough here to doubt its severity for the extent that has been taken.
See my post count? I'm active enough to know you're wrong about the severity.
You can be highly active without simply posting as you should be highly aware apparently. Posting a lot also doesn't equate to your level of observation, simply that you have a lot of opinions and like to type a lot. I think you are quite wrong.
And I know I'm not. I've seen the effect on many people's "LOL" count, including my own, which tripled (or even quadrupled) very quickly. One forumgoer in particular had his "LOL" count increased by over a thousand overnight.
I want to point out that you're doubting my observations over the course of several thousand posts, the observations of a majority of forumgoers, some of whom were affected by this, and the observations of the mods themselves, who can see stats that we don't have access to. Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you.Or you know, maybe just a lot of people disagree with you? I know that can be hard to believe.
A thousand count "lol" is highly rare occurrence and having that happen even once is not the norm.
"Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you." Based on the devs previous actions and "stats" that is a highly questionable statement and hardly a reliable resource.
No, that's not it. Sure, some are just people disagreeing, but the thing I'm talking about were about a dozen or so accounts all created from the same IP around the same time that would follow certain people around and mass LOL their posts. We see all that. I've had several people contact me privately to report that sort of thing. So while it may not have been talked about a lot publicly, it was a recurring issue and something that needed to be dealt with.
So with 5 million copies of the game sold and about 12 people who created extra accounts to do this activity we are going to remove the entire feature for all instead of simply taking action against those 12? To be clear, we're going to take action against and affect the entire DBD community for a .0000024% of the population? I fail to see how this is the logical action is any shape or form whatsoever.
I don't know why you throw 5 million copies being sold in there, that's totally irrelevant. All five million people that have bought the game aren't on the forums. There's closer to 35,000 people on the forums (not all active, just registered). That includes all the spam accounts created, of which we have banned a lot.
It's also not just 12, as mentioned, this was a recurring thing.
Well heck lets even take half that 17,500, that's a .069% population that is being allowed to affect the entire community with this change.
More than 12? Well then we could even make that 12 a 200. That's 1.14% of the forum population.
My point is that even if that 12 was way, way, way larger and we assumed an even way, way, way smaller active population on the forums of that 35k registered that is still an extremely small portion of people you are using as justification for changing an entire system that affects the entire community. That just doesn't make sense.
-
@Peanits said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
It was more common than you think. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to multiple forumgoers.
Never said I was using myself as a sample. I'm active enough here to doubt its severity for the extent that has been taken.
See my post count? I'm active enough to know you're wrong about the severity.
You can be highly active without simply posting as you should be highly aware apparently. Posting a lot also doesn't equate to your level of observation, simply that you have a lot of opinions and like to type a lot. I think you are quite wrong.
And I know I'm not. I've seen the effect on many people's "LOL" count, including my own, which tripled (or even quadrupled) very quickly. One forumgoer in particular had his "LOL" count increased by over a thousand overnight.
I want to point out that you're doubting my observations over the course of several thousand posts, the observations of a majority of forumgoers, some of whom were affected by this, and the observations of the mods themselves, who can see stats that we don't have access to. Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you.Or you know, maybe just a lot of people disagree with you? I know that can be hard to believe.
A thousand count "lol" is highly rare occurrence and having that happen even once is not the norm.
"Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you." Based on the devs previous actions and "stats" that is a highly questionable statement and hardly a reliable resource.
No, that's not it. Sure, some are just people disagreeing, but the thing I'm talking about were about a dozen or so accounts all created from the same IP around the same time that would follow certain people around and mass LOL their posts. We see all that. I've had several people contact me privately to report that sort of thing. So while it may not have been talked about a lot publicly, it was a recurring issue and something that needed to be dealt with.
So with 5 million copies of the game sold and about 12 people who created extra accounts to do this activity we are going to remove the entire feature for all instead of simply taking action against those 12? To be clear, we're going to take action against and affect the entire DBD community for a .00024% of the population? I fail to see how this is the logical action is any shape or form whatsoever.
-
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
It was more common than you think. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to multiple forumgoers.
Never said I was using myself as a sample. I'm active enough here to doubt its severity for the extent that has been taken.
See my post count? I'm active enough to know you're wrong about the severity.
You can be highly active without simply posting as you should be highly aware apparently. Posting a lot also doesn't equate to your level of observation, simply that you have a lot of opinions and like to type a lot. I think you are quite wrong.
And I know I'm not. I've seen the effect on many people's "LOL" count, including my own, which tripled (or even quadrupled) very quickly. One forumgoer in particular had his "LOL" count increased by over a thousand overnight.
I want to point out that you're doubting my observations over the course of several thousand posts, the observations of a majority of forumgoers, some of whom were affected by this, and the observations of the mods themselves, who can see stats that we don't have access to. Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you.Or you know, maybe just a lot of people disagree with you? I know that can be hard to believe.
A thousand count "lol" is highly rare occurrence and having that happen even once is not the norm.
"Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you." Based on the devs previous actions and "stats" that is a highly questionable statement and hardly a reliable resource.
I'm sure at least a handful of people disagree with me. That doesn't explain why my "LOL" count increased by the hundreds every few minutes during certain times of the day.
Anyway, I can see you're just going to keep dismissing anyone else's experience in favor of your conclusion, so I'm gonna stop wasting my time.I'm not dismissing "experience", I'm dismissing your recollection of your reality which I would definitely not consider "experience" but simply anecdotal. This isn't saying it didn't happen, it's simply that your conclusion drawn from it is not rational nor actual reality. Experience disagrees with you.
-
He needs quite a substantial buff to be viable that's for sure.
-
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
It was more common than you think. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to multiple forumgoers.
Never said I was using myself as a sample. I'm active enough here to doubt its severity for the extent that has been taken.
See my post count? I'm active enough to know you're wrong about the severity.
You can be highly active without simply posting as you should be highly aware apparently. Posting a lot also doesn't equate to your level of observation, simply that you have a lot of opinions and like to type a lot. I think you are quite wrong.
And I know I'm not. I've seen the effect on many people's "LOL" count, including my own, which tripled (or even quadrupled) very quickly. One forumgoer in particular had his "LOL" count increased by over a thousand overnight.
I want to point out that you're doubting my observations over the course of several thousand posts, the observations of a majority of forumgoers, some of whom were affected by this, and the observations of the mods themselves, who can see stats that we don't have access to. Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you.Or you know, maybe just a lot of people disagree with you? I know that can be hard to believe.
A thousand count "lol" is highly rare occurrence and having that happen even once is not the norm.
"Maybe you should defer to those who have more experience and more access to information than you." Based on the devs previous actions and "stats" that is a highly questionable statement and hardly a reliable resource.
-
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
It was more common than you think. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to multiple forumgoers.
Never said I was using myself as a sample. I'm active enough here to doubt its severity for the extent that has been taken.
See my post count? I'm active enough to know you're wrong about the severity.
You can be highly active without simply posting as you should be highly aware apparently. Posting a lot also doesn't equate to your level of observation, simply that you have a lot of opinions and like to type a lot. I think you are quite wrong.
-
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
It was more common than you think. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to multiple forumgoers.
Never said I was using myself as a sample. I'm active enough here to doubt its severity for the extent that has been taken.
-
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
You did read the part about bots, yes? There were people who had their "LOL" count inflated by hundreds, sometimes thousands thanks to those bots.
This is an extreme minority and not common whatsoever. I did read it. How about we work on finding bots instead.
-
@Peanits said:
@M2Fream said:
@Peanits, Don't you think people still need an option to express feelings of disagreement with a post? I agree people used the "Lol" in a childish manner, but I also think we on this forum are being treated a tad bit like children in this method of forced "positive only" reactions.
Perhaps you could change "vote up" and "lol" to a simple "agree" and "disagree". There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else opinion, and it is 1000 times more respectful than laughing at them.
But hey that's just my 2 cents and I respect the moderator's decisions but at the same time, I have to respectfully disagree with this one.Cheers.
Yes. In a perfect world we'd have upvotes and downvotes- and originally there was. The problem was just that after a post got enough downvotes, it would be hidden, which basically silenced anyone with an unpopular opinion. So those had to go. The LOLs became the disagree thing, but then it kept being abused by people who would run a but to LOL spam someone, or just follow someone around and LOL every single one of their posts. Using the reaction on a post because you don't agree with it is fine, following the person around and harassing them by using that reaction of absolutely everything they do is not.
You can still show people that you disagree with them by making a post and explaining why. Others with the same feelings can upvote yours instead of the other to show how they feel as well. Hopefully that'll spark some more constructive conversations as well. We're going to see how this plays out for a while.
You are changing an entire forum community because of an extremely small minorities actions. This isn't logical and is quite a terrible reasoning behind these actions.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
It's NOT bullshit to killers that are bad at the game.
I have over 4k hours across all platforms, rank 1 on both sides, not that it matters.
I highly doubt that. Links please
LOL
How about this...you provide video of you being stomped every game as killer at rank 1 and having easy games as survivor at rank 1, like you suggest, and I'll link to whatever you like.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving this threads point.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving my point that only bad killers have anything to complain about these days.
lol okay rank 20 man
lol okay
Now let's see those 4k hours, oh right, you were lying.
No, I just don't have to prove anything to you.
Never said you did, just let you know that it's clear you were lying which is why you don't understand this thread.
Yes you did and no, I'm not lying. You are. To yourself. Which is why you will defend threads like this.
See ya :')
Asking someone to do something isn't requiring it, use a dictionary. You'll learn some day, see ya
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
It's NOT bullshit to killers that are bad at the game.
I have over 4k hours across all platforms, rank 1 on both sides, not that it matters.
I highly doubt that. Links please
LOL
How about this...you provide video of you being stomped every game as killer at rank 1 and having easy games as survivor at rank 1, like you suggest, and I'll link to whatever you like.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving this threads point.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving my point that only bad killers have anything to complain about these days.
lol okay rank 20 man
lol okay
Now let's see those 4k hours, oh right, you were lying.
No, I just don't have to prove anything to you.
Never said you did, just let you know that it's clear you were lying which is why you don't understand this thread.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
It's NOT bullshit to killers that are bad at the game.
I have over 4k hours across all platforms, rank 1 on both sides, not that it matters.
I highly doubt that. Links please
LOL
How about this...you provide video of you being stomped every game as killer at rank 1 and having easy games as survivor at rank 1, like you suggest, and I'll link to whatever you like.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving this threads point.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving my point that only bad killers have anything to complain about these days.
lol okay rank 20 man
lol okay
Now let's see those 4k hours, oh right, you were lying.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
It's NOT bullshit to killers that are bad at the game.
I have over 4k hours across all platforms, rank 1 on both sides, not that it matters.
I highly doubt that. Links please
LOL
How about this...you provide video of you being stomped every game as killer at rank 1 and having easy games as survivor at rank 1, like you suggest, and I'll link to whatever you like.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving this threads point.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving my point that only bad killers have anything to complain about these days.
lol okay rank 20 man
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
It's NOT bullshit to killers that are bad at the game.
I have over 4k hours across all platforms, rank 1 on both sides, not that it matters.
I highly doubt that. Links please
LOL
How about this...you provide video of you being stomped every game as killer at rank 1 and having easy games as survivor at rank 1, like you suggest, and I'll link to whatever you like.
Like I thought, lots of talk with nothing to back it up. Further proving this threads point.
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
It's NOT bullshit to killers that are bad at the game.
I have over 4k hours across all platforms, rank 1 on both sides, not that it matters.
I highly doubt that. Links please
-
@only1biggs said:
@Blueberry said:
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours.Such bullshit
It's only bullshit to "ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours"
-
@Wolf74 said:
The problem is that the Devs try to balance the game somewhere in the middle.
Trying to ease it on the low ranks and in the same process make it worse for the high ranks.
While low rank survivor get it slightly better, the high rank killer get it much worse.
Competitive Pvp games need to get balanced top down. That's how EVERY other game is doing it. I do no other game beside Dbd that is doing it otherwise.Basically this. +1
This is the crux of the issue, the devs balancing incorrectly.
And even rank 1 stats are scewed because they've made survivor pipping way too easy so there are a lot of survivors at rank 1 that shouldn't be.
-
@Wolf74 said:
Again: "Gen Rush"
There are 4 survivor, but only 1 killer.
The killer can always only chase 1 survivor and keep him of the gens.
Switching targets is not beneficial to the killer, because the other one will heal up asap and the chase until the 1st victim is on the hook only gets longer.
And good survivor spread out anyway and try to stay away from each other.
So with an average hit taking 30-40 seconds against a decent survivor (especially at the start of a match with all pallets still available) [good runner can make it even longer than that], plus the time to carry someone to the hook, we have 70-90 seconds for the 1st hook (not including DS, insta heals, etc.), while a gen is done in 80 seconds by a single survivor working on it (not included great checks and toolboxes).
So 3 gens can pop the moment the killer got his first hook.
Survivor have basically 6 objectives -5 gens and 1 gate- and have done half of them already.
Killer need at least 6 hooks (without camping) to kill 2 survivor, which is considered a "balanced" result.
If the killer wants to "win" and get more than 2 kills, he needs 9-11 hooks.
(Not talking about chases, because not every successful chase results in a hook.)
So the killer has achieved 1/6 of his objectives or 1/10 of his objectives, depending on what you aim for (2 kills are enough or more to "win").
So we have 50% of the survivors objectives completed versus 10% of the killers objectives in the same amount of time.But still there is this strange myth that this missmatch is a result of the killers "incompetence" to hunt or control the gens.
+1
The people not understanding this are the ones that don't play both sides at rank 1 with enough hours. -
@iTz_KilLaZ_x said:
Peanits said:The hatch/endgame as a whole is going to be looked at. I really can't say more than that, and I know that's not really reassuring since plans do often change, but it's not forgotten by any means. It was mentioned on a recent stream that it's going to be changed.
I would argue that just about all of the killers are viable at rank 1, though. Obvious exceptions being Freddy and PTB legion. Leatherface is iffy, but even then he's a 4.6 killer, and at the very least you have an instant down in your pocket whenever a survivor runs in the open or has no pallets or windows nearby. Pig is a little low too, but there's some pretty good pig players out there that know when to use her powers and can burn through pallets really fast or get easy hits at shorter loops (and again, she's a 4.6 anyway). Like you said, they're not all on hillbilly/nurse level, but you can still use them at rank 1 pretty successfully.
Freddy is going to get a full rework when there's time, and the legion is going to be reviewed with the pending changes to see if he needs some more work as well.
I've got faith. The community has grown since launch and doesn't seem to be slowing down. QOL improvements are going to come.
Those killers rely on survivor mistakes to succeed for the most part. Granted, not every survivor plays like a robot and makes zero mistakes, but the fact that you have to rely so much on survivors to faulter sucks. There’s not too much outskill value as there is with nurse, huntress or clown.
This. +1
To say all killers are viable rank 1 is nonsense that I believe almost all actual rank 1 killers would agree with. Rank 1 viable means you can outplay your way to victory consistently at rank 1 if you are skilled enough. 3/4 of the killers in this game do not fit this criteria. Aside from just a few killers, you are reliant on the team being stupid and making a lot of mistakes, that does not make a killer rank 1 viable if they need this.
-
That's why I play spirit. There's only a few killers that can get around these issues somewhat. For the vast majority of the killers available you're pretty much just boned unless the survivors are dumb. This isn't new though, it's been this way for years and devs don't care.
-
Yeah the devs are extremely disconnected, video sums it up
-
@redsopine01 said:
Blueberry said:I think Urban Evasion is highly underrated.
Dude that's a meta rn on console
Don't see it that much at rank 1 on pc
-
I think Urban Evasion is highly underrated.
-
Because the devs don't know what they're doing for balance, that's why. Should've never been taken away.
-
This is such a terrible change.