Chatkovski
Chatkovski
About
- Username
- Chatkovski
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
They are obviously not fair as they are, I'm tired of these games too short because of this killrush. :)
-
Yes, it's very beautiful.
I also noticed that the shack is made of brick, well cemented...
-
@Peanits said:
We've talked about this in the past, but we aren't planning on punishing camping since there are times when it's the right move. If the survivors are being aggressive with saves, leaving the hook is the wrong move. It wouldn't make sense to punish the killer for playing smart.
So, if the survivors are not being aggressive with saves, staying close to the hook is the wrong move. It would make sense to punish the killer for not playing smart. (and no, in the eyes of the camped survivor, the killer is in no way punished because the other survivors can repair generators quietly and probably also escape without any threat from the killer. This is otherwise abnormal)
A simple rule: if the killer stays close to the hook while he is not in chase, he is punished, because his presence is not justified. This punishment must guarantee a safe hook rescue. If the killer wants to know if a survivor is already close or going to the hook, there are multiple perks for this. And if this rule is imperfect, I am sure you can make it so.
The killers must hunt, they must not force the survivors to come directly to him under the blackmail to ruin the experience of a player. This is the role of the survivors with the generators: they force the killer to come towards them, and this is perfectly normal and logical: they work to escape but the killer is there to prevent them. Let's not reverse the roles.
Okay. Let's reverse the roles... Give survivors the ability - basekit, not perk, of course, exactly like camping - to force the killer to flee from repaired generators. These will be safe areas where survivors can take refuge for as long as necessary.
What? The survivors will stay there doing nothing? It is unfair ? No, it's a strategy. These survivors are safe, for now, but do not repair any other generator. You see, it doesn't benefit the survivors, in fact. The killer just has to walk away and chase someone else (tip: he's probably repairing another generator). Don't be silly, and adapt.
These killers don't want to look for the survivors, they don't want to hunt the survivors: they want the survivors to come directly to kill themselves or to escape for free, but it is the survivors who are the problem! I am hallucinated by such nonsense.
-
When I realize that a Huntress has the hatchet instadowns (this is often accompanied by one or more disconnections of survivors, even today, it's a shame), I am completely panicked and go crazy. I approach Huntress very quickly against my will, I become perfectly visible, and I try to aim the hatchet with my head. It may be the effect of the lullaby ? Sometimes the hatchets become grenades and affect me from a distance ! It’s very impressive.
I often have renewed hope soon after and regain my senses, since I am desperately trying to get off this hook. Unfortunately, I am a fragile survivor with no strength, I cannot fight enough against the Entity.
These Huntress have a lot of skills, and they can show off their muscles by staying next to a hook ! I totally bow to their superiority and their strategy of rare subtlety.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1288094#Comment_1288094
Like I said, strategies can be used to grief. For the mods, the question is "When has a legit strategy crossed over to griefing?"
The OP is clearly intending to grief other players because he thinks it'll somehow make the devs work faster. Someone facing a team of hook vultures, on the other hand, is just adapting to the circumstances. Both camp, but only one is griefing.
I admit that moderation here on the forum, in this case, is very easy. However, I have huge doubts about the moderation of the game. I do not believe for a second that the moderators are able to determine when the strategy becomes griefing.
I am therefore waiting for someone to explain to me how this moderation takes place. What are the specific criteria that make camping a griefing ? When can I report, when can I not ? These are completely legitimate questions.
Without response, I then assume that valid reports are simply thrown in the trash as soon as they read "camping" or "bodyblocking", and that the moderation of the game is failing.
It would still be much simpler if these things became clearly prohibited, or ineffective.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1288055#Comment_1288055
Bodyblocking is a strategy. Doesn't mean it can't also be used to grief. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
- camping and bodyblocking are not considered as bannable offenses. It is explicit.
- griefing is.
- you agree that camping and bodyblocking can be used to grief.
So, it may be me, but it seems to me there is an obvious contradiction.
-
Here is further proof that camping - and especially the bubba-facecamp combo - is just another strategy. I don't see anything here that looks like grief. Everything is fine.
When will the denial end?
-
Maybe, within a decade.
More emotes, for a minimum of clear communication, are welcome.
-
- each item of survivor exists only in one rarity of a medium power, no longer obtainable in the bloodweb and are in unlimited quantity directly in the inventory of the survivors. In the bloodweb, survivors have just as many addons more suggested
- only the owners of a key can open and escape through the hatch
- rework of maps (item)
- return of toolboxes which do not empty in 10 seconds when used on a generator
- killers no longer see the items brought by the survivors (in the lobby), they also no longer see their nicknames and can no longer view their profile
- totem counter and Kindred basekit, as well as any change aimed at balancing solo and SWF survivors
- real punishment, in gameplay, against camping
- Borrowed Time benefits automatically, systematically, but only to the user of the perk
- Decisive Strike is redesigned / nerf
- Moris nerf
- Small Game is no longer triggered by objects with which the survivor interacts
- unhook yourself (and succeed) just before the end of P1 no longer leads directly to P3
- ...
-
And that is precisely why the killers should not see what the survivors bring. Simple concerns of consistency and balance.
-
According to many killers I read on the forum, camping is not something advantageous and is essentially a bad practice for inexperienced killers.
So none. Preventing it will already be a great help in itself to the killers.
-
I have no expectations about the new killer. There are so many more important things in my opinion.
However, if it is Candyman, I do not know him. I only know the Helen's theme, heard in this intense scene from American Horror Story Asylum. I hope to hear this melody somewhere in DBD if it's Candyman. Having the signature of Philip Glass somewhere is always classy.
-
Do not feed the trolls, comrades.
Regarding the potential abuse of survivors, it is not unavoidable, it is no longer a valid argument. Just add a simple rule:
- if the killer chases another survivor near the hooked survivor, the effect is disabled.
Unless there is a logical exception, inherent in a particular proposal, consider that this rule applies to all proposals.
And no. The killers do not accept that a generator is quickly repaired, so we punish the survivors who coordinate and focus on a generator. There is no reason for survivors to accept that they cannot save a survivor without necessarily taking a big risk, or that they agree to play a game where they will be 90% of the time on a hook, before dying. We must punish the killers who focus on the death of a survivor.
-
Again, I've just lost out on the 4th kill because the survivor knew where it was and camped on it to escape.
[...]
Stop the hatch showing up to avoid survivors getting an easy escape.
I may be misunderstanding. But proposing a change just because it deprives you of a 4k, isn't that clear proof that a killer asks for a 4k easily?
Especially since there is already an effective way to deprive the last two survivors of the hatch: slug the first, take care of the second, check the distance to the hatch of the two survivors in the dying state, and act accordingly.
In addition, with this change, I have no doubt, the killers will continue to complain: it is not fair, the hatch appeared exactly next to the survivor and I could not know where it was before him, I couldn't get my 4k! The hatch must be visible to the killer only from the start of the game!
I warn, because I know that this idea is mainly a reaction to another : a single survivor more sure of being able to escape by the hatch when the killer ignores him in order to kill the other survivor immediately is absolutely not equivalent to a killer more assured of having a 4k while doing even less. And we compare here a 3k and a 4k, not a 0k and a 4k. Personally, I think it more logical that it is more difficult to get a 4k than less.
-
Yes, it is reprehensible.
However, I do not think this is a problem specific to the Doctor. We can also imagine a similar situation with Oni, Myers, Plague... It is therefore rather at the map design that we must act.
It is an elevated place and there is next to no door or window connecting the house, adding a "window" on the side (behind your friend) may be possible. This would not create a powerful loop, but an exit for this kind of situation.
-
I do not know what problem has Freddy, but it is often with this killer that we see this kind of thing... Killer, map, or dedicated server, I do not know, but there is a problem.
-
Very happy to see people with whom I have common ideas, on a theme that fascinates me!
Indeed, if camping is a legitimate strategy, it is a question of understanding why and when. Killers are fascinating beings.
Camping is a legitimate strategy when the killer wants to prevent another survivor from picking up the hooked survivor. In this situation, it is therefore necessary that at least a second survivor is nearby, and that the killer tries to prevent him from approaching the hook, so he must chase him.
Indeed, the condition of the proximity of another survivor is not sufficient, because this proximity is not necessarily information that the killer has. He can just assume that another survivor will come unhooked his comrade: and he's right, so he waits. However, this is not acceptable. This completely reverses the logic of the game where the killer must chase the survivors, and where the survivors must flee the killer.
Everything that comes out of this precise context is therefore not strategic camping, it is a hostage taking considerably impacting the gameplay, even griefing for the survivors concerned. It therefore seems necessary to me to punish the killer when he waits near a hooked survivor without any valid reason, without the presence of another survivor whom he chases.
For this I propose to gradually offer various advantages to the hooked survivor : Kindred, then Borrowed Time, then Deliverance.
If the killer wishes to camp legitimately, strategically, he will therefore have to make sure that a survivor is actually nearby to force him to leave by chasing him. Perks exist to obtain this information, such as Whispers, Spies From The Shadows, Hangman's Trick, Territorial Imperative...
Otherwise, he takes a risk by voluntarily staying close to the hook.
-
If we look at the difference between before and after when someone uses Prove Thyself, the repair time increases regardless of the number of survivors.
- before: 80 / 40.4 / 27.8 / 22
- after: 80 / 40.9 / 29.3 / 25
Where is the buff ?
-
I agree, the length of this animation is scandalous, and that it conditions the opening of the hatch is not justified.
There is already a technique for a killer to prevent the last survivor from escaping through the hatch: slugging.
If the killer decides to leave a last survivor free in order to kill/sacrifice the penultimate survivor, while he can prevent the use of the hatch, he commits a fault. And this fault should not be forgiven by the duration of an animation.
-
Personally, I don't like this Killer Instinct either.
Ghostface hunting. He has his power and moves furtively looking for a comrade to kill. He doesn't see me, but I see him. He's not as stealthy as he thinks, he deserves to be punished.
I decide to reveal it. I am also revealed. Ghostface chases me, he is punished but also rewarded by obtaining the position of a survivor. I am punished for having played correctly, for potentially avoiding the status exposed on a comrade. Playing solo, I guarantee that my altruism has wide limits.
I prefer that this information is not given, even if it requires a Ghostface buff to compensate.
Or we keep Killer Instinct, but revealing Ghostface in addition to disabling its power, also reveals its aura to all survivors for a very short time. This has the advantage of balancing solo and SWF players. Again, a buff to compensate if necessary.
-
I agree with the first answer. I already played Windows Of Opportunity + Open-Handed for an effect up to 28 meters, it was for me already quite unpleasant sometimes (even if very useful), so 128 meters... I don't even dare imagine the result against a Freddy fake pallets.
If these perks deserve buffs, I think we have to find another way.
-
@KingOfBadRNG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1245855#Comment_1245855
How do you know there bots?
Like I said, this is something I heard, from a streamer playing DBD mobile, without much precision. I don't play DBD mobile. Maybe it was a joke that I did not understand, not being very attentive and doing something else at the same time... But that seemed true to me.
-
I seem to have heard that bots replace the disconnected survivors on mobile, far from being totally useless, even more useful than some real survivors. So I expect the same.
-
This will be double for me, since I will probably have corrupted files and the triggering of the EAC, like after almost every update. I don't have the fiber. :)
-
@bubba_is_bubba said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1238458#Comment_1238458
Not only. The author of the Thread dont reply when i say:
1) Campers are already been punished and they depip instantly after the match. In fact campers (most of them Bad Players) :
- don't chase
- don't apply pressure to gen (they are not defended)
- don't hit anybody instead they sit on desk watching the surv on hook
2) Most of the time a Camper dont know how this game works. If you camp you have in the meantime 2 even 3 gen done = ez life for survivors. And if another Surv loop correctly, the "Evil Camper" finish the match with 1 kill, sometimes even not the kill.
3) Surv Team has all meta perks they need to address the camper and to defeat the Evil Camper (if you dont know how to do that it means you dont have many hours of gameplay, that's another story).
4) Sometimes you can have on red ranks a match like this one (https://youtu.be/BO-3W4hj4vc?t=25), a very very fast chase and an insta Gen. I had this too. It's not a problem for me, for many people, that's how game works. It's just to confirm that to camp is useless and you are already penalized if you camp. If you camp you can have in those matches 1 Kill max... if you are lucky....
I understand everyone wants to bring water to his mill but this is a forum and a discussion. If you refuse to reply to some facts bringing only ideas that fix... nothing... it's useless to discuss.
In my opinion there are things more important to discuss in game like the "lag shots".
1. Depip is not a punishment. Offering the killer the opportunity to meet even weaker survivors (by rank) is not a punishment, it is an advantage. What would be a punishment, real, is a punishment that impacts the gameplay, directly during the game. This punishment inflicted will also more naturally and negatively impact the emblem score of the killer, and positively that of the survivors. It would be much fairer.
2. Ignoring how the game works is not a good excuse, it justifies punishment. The survivors do not want an "ez life", they want to interact with a killer who hunts them, not repair 2 or 3 generators with the guarantee that they are safe. It also ignores the situation of the camped survivor. It seems to me that everyone agrees that a game where a killer would not hit a survivor once, sees the 5 generators repaired in a few minutes would not be satisfactory. Why would it be acceptable for survivors if the killer decides to camp?
3. This is wrong. And what is the perk allowing the killer to apply such pressure that it would force all survivors to use certain perks? There is none, it's free, and requires almost no skills. And it seems very contradictory to say that camping is bad, poor, useless, but explain it takes many hours of play and the use of certain perks to be able to react correctly.
4. If camping is unnecessary, punishing it more should not be a problem. In addition, this does not result in a single kill at most. Just adding the use of NOED changes everything, for example.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that I shared an idea that I am exploring at the moment (page 1), the post having undergone moderation after immediate editing, some people may not have seen it. It's an idea you should enjoy.
-
I approved of the idea of CheersTC very cautiously. This does not punish the killer enough. This only pushes the problem further, giving more time to other survivors to repair the generators. But for the camped survivor, that hardly changes anything. Worse, he can spend more time on his hook doing nothing before experiencing the same tragic end.
I've been thinking about another approach since today: giving powerful effects directly to the camped survivor (with similar activation conditions, of course). It's very simple: Borrowed Time, Deliverance. After 15 seconds of cumulative camping, the camped survivor obtains the Borrowed Time effect. After 30 seconds, it also obtains the effect of Deliverance. Free.
I think it is extremely dissuasive. The killer no longer has any interest in abusing this easy hostage-taking, forcing the other survivors to approach the killer (the logic of the game being precisely the opposite), under the blackmail of ruining the experience of 'one of the players.
Small disadvantage, it only works for the first time hooked, but it seems to me a very good start, maybe enough.
-
I did this survey, and I was shocked to read this. I don't know what that means, but it doesn't mean anything good.
Several hypotheses:
- the person creating the surveys (it's a real job) has a huge bias.
- the person creating the surveys is not serious.
- the person creating the surveys is very serious, the real question being hidden: are the players biased, and who? If many killers answer "Greatly", since the data can be crossed, we can conclude that they are completely biased.
- the question, absurd, was placed voluntarily to propagate the idea that a change is happening. Everything has already been decided about, the survivors must now accept this change. One way to widen the Overton window.
-
Yes. The idea also comes to lodge in my mind, and it seems indeed an opportunity to encourage diversity by the lure of additional BP (and why not XP).
Regarding survivors, there are currently 1,353,275 unique perk builds possible. 864 501 for the killers. It’s pretty exciting.
Abuse can be perfectly prevented.
- a limited number of uses with tokens that are spent and recovered over time (very much limits use) or after completing a game using Roulette. Very basic. This simply prevents you from relaunching indefinitely to choose your build.
- to prevent manipulation with the Prestige system: it is possible to calculate the bonus according to the number of perks that the survivor or killer has. If you only have 4 perks: x1, otherwise it increases proportionally.
-
Yes, it is generally funny.
I only have two sorrows:
- the survivors seem capable of revealing Ghostface through the trees (maybe also the walls?). Why ?
- a survivor who reveals Ghostface... reveals his own position to Ghostface. Why ?
Changing these two things seems to me beneficial, for a more coherent cat and mouse game.
-
Versatility + as imposing as a spaghetti, so the real distance (to predict the hit) is more difficult to assess.
-
No lag or hacking. It's the game finally balanced, look: the gen rush no longer exists.
As the main killer, although I actively campaign for its nerf, I advise you to use No Mither to be able to systematically recover from the Dying State. It's really too powerful.
-
Camping was considered problematic by the developers themselves, looking for a solution. They failed or abandoned. Now at least one of them has expressed that it is a legitimate strategy. And all the most biased opinions joyfully repeat this opinion hoping to be authoritative, repeat this ridiculous reversal of conviction.
In most video games, the concept of griefing often includes camping. The first is condemnable in DBD, not the second. Likewise, camping is rarely - if ever - a desired mechanism in video games. It is not complicated to understand why: it brings nothing - or almost nothing - of interest. No dynamic, close to AFK, and deeply penalizing the experience of at least one player.
“Just abandon the hooked survivor (hoping he doesn't commit suicide), repair the generators and escapet!” WHAT A GREAT GAME, THANK YOU!
Yes, some players have a different vision of DBD, which they want dynamic. Some people don't want a game where they can find themselves doing nothing for several minutes, destroying a key on their keyboard, and where this ridiculous scene is the end of their game. And for the others, a game where they will only repair generators without ever meeting the killer supposed to hunt them...
Yes, some players want that in DBD, the killer must always make the effort to go to the survivors (this is the principle of the hunt), and not the reverse by a vulgar and simple hostage taking.
Dare to tell me that camping brings dynamism, is interesting, that it is beneficial for the game. Dare to tell me that these multiple people coming to taunt here on the forum because they use Leatherface for the sole purpose of camping with Insidious and Moris, that they do this by lEgItImAtE sTrAtEgY. Dare to say here that these people are not griefers.
Camping is problematic. It is not desirable. It's a game defect.
-
I agree.
- Killers lose 2 addons per game.
- If we consider that the survivors have a 1/2 probability of escaping, they lose on average 2.5 items/addons.
The fact that survivors can obtain items in play is not an acceptable compensation. There are only three chests, and it's totally random. If we compare to killers, this is equivalent to their powers. The killers choose the killer they will play. For me, this compensates for the depletion of the items.
And to make the situation a little worse, I remind you that if the survivors ignore the killer they will be playing against, the killer always sees the items brought by the survivors into the lobby.
I fully accept that the addons are always consumed, for everyone. But I want free items, in one rarity.
- this guarantees that survivors always start a game with at least one item.
- survivors will no longer have to hesitate to use a rarer item, afraid of losing it.
- this frees up space in the bloodwebs in favor of addons.
-
It is indeed very annoying, especially since these behaviors are also contagious, even on oneself.
I already made this request in the suggestions: to be able to hide the answers of certain users. I don't want to waste my time reading the answers: "No", "git gud" or "bait" (with the image, it's a very important added value!). It would be a huge step forward.
-
@blue4zion said:
I believe this was tested at one point in a PTB, but did not work out so well.
I think survivors found some way to exploit it by making the killer near them as well as a few other issues.
Disabling the slowdown if another survivor is near the hooked survivor will prevent these exploits.
That said, in my opinion, it is still not satisfactory, because that does not prevent the killer from camping. A killer may decide not to move further, and wait for the other survivors to come directly to him, or to escape. The problem is still here.
Anyway, devs - while they were looking for a solution before - have now decided that this is a legitimate strategy. Amusing.
-
All these holes in the walls are very good news! This announces the removal of the bloodlust, this mechanism rewarding bad killers and punishing good survivors. <3
-
@FichteHiro said:
Bloodlust exists to make sure the Killer can't be looped forever and be infinited. Back in 2016, when the Entity Blocker and Bloodlust didn't exist and Killers vaulted Windows painfully slowly, almost every Map used to have an infinite that could be abused by Survivors.
Since 2016, there have been many changes precisely to avoid this. The Exhaustion happened at the same time, and we can think for example of the change of Balanced Landing...
Changes continue, currently with the redesign of the maps, and soon with destructible walls (including in the shack).
So in the long term, since these problems are solved differently, the bloodlust should logically disappear.
-
Survivors earn on average much less BP per game, and they have to buy their items and addons, hope to have the right items and addons, which they can lose if they don't escape, or get rotten items without addons in the chests, or use two perks to increase the chance to have something acceptable (and one to keep the addons if escaping!). And items and addons undergo nerf after nerf.
I found the solution: I no longer bring items and addons. I open a chest if I find one. (In truth, I don't play anymore, except to do Archives, games in which I only focus on challenges.)
-
The problem is not knowing who we are playing against. Players also have full control over this information (Steam in this case). Hiding information about DBD (such as hours of play) is possible. Changing nicknames and deleting old ones is also possible.
However, we should be able to use a single identity, for consistency and publicity, without fear of special treatment. I am also sensitive to inequalities, and here the treatment is unequal: either we hide this information for all the players (including the survivors) in the lobby, or we show this information for all the players (including the killer).
But ultimately, the critical point is the behavior in the game. Camping and tunneling are always a problem, not just for streamers. And there is no point in answering “legitimate strategy” by knowingly ignoring what we are really referring to.
Furthermore, the message posted by the killer is reprehensible. And disclosure is prohibited on the forum. I invite you to delete the images or to censor the nickname.
-
By playing this way, it is possible that survivors never meet the killer, or rarely meet him. They fix generators, maybe run into the killer once, go fix other generators, open the doors, and go out.
From their point of view, it's like a killer refusing to play.
The objective of the survivors is to escape, not to enter a house guarded by a killer. And the killer's goal is to slow down the repair of the generators, to hunt and kill the survivors, not to defend a house.
This could be an idea for a new game mode, but today DBD is not made for it.
-
This penalty already exists. Perhaps increasing it a bit is acceptable.
However, this will proportionately encourage survivors to repair alone. Two survivors repairing two different generators at the same time (without being disturbed by the killer) remains and will remain more efficient than two survivors repairing two generators together successively. Yes.
So after destroying the toolboxes, after encouraging the survivors to repair alone, the killers will complain... that the survivors are working on different generators!
Let's go back to the effective long-term toolboxes. Let’s increase the number of charges necessary for repair rather than making useless all that is supposed to be beneficial. We must act at the root, and stop tirelessly pruning the bush before it no longer looks like anything.
-
Double BP event, because it's always nice.
Charms: bottle of hydroalcoholic gel, and a surgical mask. This encourages hygiene.
For The Plague, doing something is obvious and very tempting, but it can be very badly appreciated and become a badbuzz.
-
I approve. This is probably because it is one of the most opaque and complicated systems in the game. If you really want to understand how it works (in order to optimize the progression of the challenge), you have to go to the wiki.
-
@Digwiid said:
Well if we give No Mither the "no blood orb" treatment, then surely it would be fair to make it so Sloppy Butcher makes you drop them more and maybe Bloodhound increases absorb/aura range? :)
Why not. But there is an important difference between these two cases: the survivors do not choose the killer they will play against, so using No Mither or Lucky Break for the sole purpose of countering Oni is a bet (very risky if not absurd). For Sloppy Butcher or Bloodhound, this is not a bet, an Oni who uses it necessarily wins.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Because a perk shouldn't force just one specific killer to not be able to activate their power at all and be nothing more than an M1 killer.
Similar situations already exist. Small Game against the Trapper, or Iron Will against the Spirit for example.
And as already said: that a killer plays against four survivors using No Mither is unlikely. In addition, survivors do not know which killer they will be playing against. So as for Small Game against the Trapper, or Iron Will against the Spirit: no luck.
No Mither is already a penalizing perk in itself (for once a survivor removes one of these many second chances!).
So yes it seems fair, and more consistent, if No Mither (and Lucky Break?) prevent the creation of blood orbs.
-
@FichteHiro said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1155248#Comment_1155248
The Devs wanted to change the overall function of Toolboxes with the Sabo buff, and since the Gen Speed is already fast, they decided to make the impact Toolboxes have in the game less major.
Toolboxes (items), a major impact on generators?
For a generator repaired by a survivor, without any bonus or add-on, but with a toolbox, the repair time (as a reminder, the reference is 80 seconds):
- Worn-Out Tools. Before: 69.5 seconds. Now 76.8.
- Toolbox. Before: 69.8 seconds. Now 73.3.
- Mechanic's Toolbox. Before: 66.67 seconds. Now 73.1.
- Commodious Toolbox. Before: 69.5 seconds. Now 69.3. (the only buff, 0.2 seconds)
- Engineer's Toolbox. Before: 64 seconds. Now 72.
- Alex's Toolbox. Before: 72.7 seconds. Now 75.2.
Respectively, before the toolboxes reduced the repair time by 10.4 / 10.4 / 13.3 / 10.4 / 16 / 7.2 seconds.
Respectively, now the toolboxes reduce repair time by 3.2 / 6.6 / 6.8 / 10.6 / 8 / 4.8 seconds.
Small fact: a generator is repaired more quickly by two survivors without toolboxes than by a single survivor with the old Engineer's Toolbox. And not just a little: there are 20 seconds of difference.
Are these changes going to stop the killers from crying over the speed of repair? I have huge doubts. However, survivors now empty their toolbox in less than 15 seconds to gain 6 seconds of repair.
Toolboxes have never had a major impact on generator repair time. And now this one is really ridiculous. So ridiculous that this feature should just be removed. It sounds like a scam.
-
It is indeed a nerf. The increase in the speed bonus does not compensate for the reduction in charges.
Finally, we have empty toolboxes in 10 or 20 seconds, for a laughable bonus (3 to 10 seconds less repair time compared to a solo total repair without a toolbox).
Using toolboxes to repair generators is now the silliest idea. Toolboxes are now only used to sabotage hooks without having to use the (bad) Saboteur perk.
For me, it is an unassumed nerf, which does almost nothing except incite survivors to empty their toolboxes unnecessarily on generators. You might as well remove the possibility of using toolboxes on generators. It will be more honest.
-
@avilmask said:
No.
Also your problem is far from being usual. Maybe something is wrong with your ROM/RAM and data gets corrupted as it's written on your PC?
If it is not usual, it is not uncommon either.
Many of us have this issue. And this only concerns DBD. Systematically after each update.
Clarification: yes, checking the integrity of the files and reinstalling works. But the problem will still be present next big update. It's systematic.
-
@DwightOP said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1150342#Comment_1150342
What do you mean by paying?
Survivors get items from the bloodwebs, so they pay for them in BPs (obviously), like add-ons.
This is why it worked well when the survivors kept their add-ons (except some, the most powerful and expensive, which were consumed): they also paid for items, and could also lose everything (items included).
-
It is precisely something that I wrote at the end of the survey currently proposed.
This is an essential thing. With a more substantial tutorial.