Chrona
Chrona
About
- Username
- Chrona
- Joined
- Visits
- 500
- Last Active
Comments
-
"What, this giant gash on my stomach? Ain't no problem, let's go drink" - David king if he wasn't so british.
-
Okuu46 said:I mean why is it such a big deal?
If a killer main goes into a match, up against a 4 man SWF with purple flashlights and toolboxes with gears; and they know he/she is gonna be gen rushed up the arse throughout the majority of the match; and mocked at the exit gates by the survivors towards the end; why should the killer stay around and feel weak, humiliated powerless and powerless by it?
Or when you start a match as a survivor and you get down three times instantly when a match is only 2 mins in? Why should you stick around sometimes?
I dont know, i say If you DC; by all means go ahead, your still getting bloodpoints and stuff out of it; just not the person quitting; i just don't see the big issue with it honestly on both sides?For one, offerings and the killers addons. In a swf, burn 3 or so bloody party streamers, and the killer dcs as soon as the map loads? That's fair, surely. And iif the killer burns good addons and offerings, and all the survivors dc, leaving them having burnt up the items, but not getting to use them?And as a survivor, having a duo disconnect within a minute of the match? We're down two survivors, and still have their generators to do.The point is that it ruins the experience for the others. Everyone has bad games. So what? I've deliberately disconnected one time in my 400 hours, and that was on a match where the lobby ping was green and stable in the lobby, but once the game started, I couldn't walk for 2 seconds without rubberbanding. -
Jed said:
No, I'm saying that dedicated servers are a tool. And like how hammers are very useful, they can be inappropriate for the job at hand. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. And no, it isn't "convenient" that I think that p2p is likely the better choice in games that have 6 or less players per match, or more, if the matches are particularly short (see splatoon 2).@Chronaservers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for examplah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
AGAIN, I will mention how match size is one of the biggest components. The fewer players there are playing a game, the less connections there are overall, and the less that a dedicated server is truly needed. CoD games have twice as many up to more than ten times as many players in a match than dead by daylight does: they need dedicated servers because so many people are playing. Also, P2P has no distinct benefit for them, because each player is exactly the same, no one has a special role. Again, games that specifically have very few players, 1v1, 2v2, etc, specifically don't use dedicated servers because it would increase latency more often than not for so few players.
The Friday the 13th game has 8 players in a match. 3 more than dead by daylight, and that does justify the need of dedicated servers. Beyond that they did P2P in a very dumb way: one of the councilors was the host, not jason. Meaning if THEY quit, the match would end, period. So dedicated servers is two birds, one stone for them. It puts the responsibility of being the host off of one of the less important players, and the server can better handle the larger number of connections. 3 may not sound like a large increase, but connections are exponential, remember.
And yes, in some ways, dedicated servers could be worse. For one, let's say that they only build the servers in america. Oh, you aren't in america? Sucks for you, you now have 400+ ping for every single match. And, again, it isn't the "cure-all" that everyone thinks it will be. Laggy people will still lag. They'll still rubber band and teleport. In fact, I would say nothing would change. Plus in his post, he mentioned it may have been a deliberate choice by the developers, using it to enforce the "favor the shooter" type of logic. The logic is that it's worse for someone to feel like something should have hit, but latency/etc says it didn't than for someone to get hit by something that they feel shouldn't have hit. Overwatch was built on that. Specifically, games like the older CoD games and such had a "favor the dodger" logic. Meaning you could pump a dozen rounds into them, but the game could flat out tell you no.
What you want is for them to improve the netcode, not get dedicated servers.
Ok so you ARE saying dedicated servers are worse hehe....gotcha.
Oh and apparently if its 5 players and under then p2p is better....how convenient for your argument hehe.
-
I sure am enjoying my 10 second queue times now that they've changed how the vials work. I don't even have time to lurk the forum and spread toxicity!
-
I've had a few matches where there was a spike almost exactly every 30-45 seconds. Got kind of irritating. Doesn't seem to be misbehaving now though
-
Minimum 21, left undeclared for now other than that
-
@redsopine1 said:
Who's evenEvan Macmillan, also known as the trapper.
-
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
AGAIN, I will mention how match size is one of the biggest components. The fewer players there are playing a game, the less connections there are overall, and the less that a dedicated server is truly needed. CoD games have twice as many up to more than ten times as many players in a match than dead by daylight does: they need dedicated servers because so many people are playing. Also, P2P has no distinct benefit for them, because each player is exactly the same, no one has a special role. Again, games that specifically have very few players, 1v1, 2v2, etc, specifically don't use dedicated servers because it would increase latency more often than not for so few players.
The Friday the 13th game has 8 players in a match. 3 more than dead by daylight, and that does justify the need of dedicated servers. Beyond that they did P2P in a very dumb way: one of the councilors was the host, not jason. Meaning if THEY quit, the match would end, period. So dedicated servers is two birds, one stone for them. It puts the responsibility of being the host off of one of the less important players, and the server can better handle the larger number of connections. 3 may not sound like a large increase, but connections are exponential, remember.
And yes, in some ways, dedicated servers could be worse. For one, let's say that they only build the servers in america. Oh, you aren't in america? Sucks for you, you now have 400+ ping for every single match. And, again, it isn't the "cure-all" that everyone thinks it will be. Laggy people will still lag. They'll still rubber band and teleport. In fact, I would say nothing would change. Plus in his post, he mentioned it may have been a deliberate choice by the developers, using it to enforce the "favor the shooter" type of logic. The logic is that it's worse for someone to feel like something should have hit, but latency/etc says it didn't than for someone to get hit by something that they feel shouldn't have hit. Overwatch was built on that. Specifically, games like the older CoD games and such had a "favor the dodger" logic. Meaning you could pump a dozen rounds into them, but the game could flat out tell you no.
What you want is for them to improve the netcode, not get dedicated servers.
-
@Orion said:
@Chrona said:
@Orion said:
@Chrona said:
Well, the animation confirms that it was the trapper, and the writer is an idiot.Well, we did know that from him injecting a rat with the serum...
The animation confirms that to us. The dev who wrote that is writing it from Benedict's perspective. The Trapper had been heavily modified by the serum.
I would like the record to show that by writer I mean the in-lore writer, who we're assuming is Benedict? And assuming this is current (the logs are being written as we go), the trapper only got infected yesterday/today. Meaning it was the mask that he was calling it, or the traps. Both seem..like odd things to call a "mechanical mouth"
Well, he is from the 19th century, right?
If I remember correctly, his story gets confusing, but he was taken into the entity originally in the 1980's, and was a detective that learned about and was investigating the entity, and taken after investigating the coldridge farm. Regardless, leg hold traps like that have existed as far back in the 1600's (used to trap poachers/etc on estate ground), and more commonly in the 1700's (when it became more common for use by trappers)
@Judgement said:
Might be talking about The Smasher.
He had the ability to completely annihilate and remove map props from play.
Essentially the Smasher would have been able to wipe buildings off the map and once he’s smashed everything, it’ll just be a vast expanse of nothingness left.
That being said it’s obvious how overpowered Smasher would have been, especially if you compare him to The Nurse, who can IGNORE map props entirely.Though it’s extremely likely that the Killer Vigo’s journal references is the Trapper. No other (non-licensed) Killers have any metal directly attached to them, nor do they wear any full-face masks made of actual metal.
The Doctor’s mouthpiece isn’t mechanical, it just holds his mouth open, exposing his teeth.
Evan’s mask is wooden and metal, though the most notable metal part of his mask is the teeth. Vigo might have still been processing the situation - seeing as he was nearly reminded of his (im)mortality - and thought the mouth was mechanical.That makes sense. However, it's still a weird way to describe it :P
-
@Orion said:
@Chrona said:
Well, the animation confirms that it was the trapper, and the writer is an idiot.Well, we did know that from him injecting a rat with the serum...
The animation confirms that to us. The dev who wrote that is writing it from Benedict's perspective. The Trapper had been heavily modified by the serum.
I would like the record to show that by writer I mean the in-lore writer, who we're assuming is Benedict? And assuming this is current (the logs are being written as we go), the trapper only got infected yesterday/today. Meaning it was the mask that he was calling it, or the traps. Both seem..like odd things to call a "mechanical mouth"
-
I generally play normal, unless I'm in the mood to farm.
Especially if it's one of the swamp maps. I swear, the event hooks always spawn on that upper ridge, on one side away from all the gens.
-
@Gamzello What you're thinking about is that when the match is started, the location of the hatch is decided and fixed. After 1 more generator than currently living survivors, as @Khalednazari stated, the hatch becomes visible. It opens when only one survivor is left in the match.
So if all survivors are alive, when the 5th and final generator is completed (as 5 is one more than 4 living survivors), the hatch will become visible at the location that was determined at the start of the match.
Fun fact: if the hatch becomes visible/spawns where a bear trap (and presumably a hag's trap) is, it will cease to exist. Either despawned, or teleported somewhere else. I actually had a survivor be saved by that one match
-
Well, the animation confirms that it was the trapper, and the writer is an idiot.
Well, we did know that from him injecting a rat with the serum...
-
While a dedicated server could help with that, so could a vpn. Plus (I'm talking out of my depth here now), I'm sure that some kind of IP address masking or something could be added to the netcode to prevent this issueMichiko said:My friend actually had to email psn and report a Survivor who got mad they were sacrificed. They had all his information and threatened him. This is a very real thing. Dead by Daylight is the worst community for people to have access to that stuff considering how tilted everyone gets but I understand the time and profit that has to go into making such a thing & also not everyone is out to get you just because one bad apple is. If they have the resources to make dedicated servers, they will.
-
They allowed it to stack with the belt/loop deliberately. Hatchets ARE easy to dodge generally. If they didn't stack, it would reduce it by two. But inestead of making it needlessly complicated (and increasing the cost of the build, it was balamced around the military belt. 15k for 3 one shot hatchets? I dare say that's fair.
-
The point is that essentially very gimmiky builds would effect it. Imagine a doctor going heavy with the electricity and running nurses calling, distressing, unnerving pressence, AND clourophobia.
-
Are you just copy-pasting that same comment in all the similar threads?Blueberry said:If they literally just allowed survivors to collect bloodpoints with vials after 30 this ENTIRE problem would be fixed. Being unable to go past 30 is the whole reason killer que's are ridiculous right now. This isn't mentioning how everyone's got petal offerings that are totally worthless stacked in their inventory because of that 30 limit. They seriously need to hotfix this and solve the problem.
-
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
-
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessityYou do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...Also, run a VPN.
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them? -
tizzi717 said:
i don't agree with you. Cross play only between xbox one and ps4. Keyboard and mouse player are too op sorry
SnakeSound222 said:If consoles could cross play with each other and OchiDO was banned across all platforms then that would be good. PC players would have a much easier time against console players, so we can’t have PC and console crossplay.
Finally someone gets it. Pc with xbox is the most likely scenario IF it ever would happen. Sony has actively disallowed and pushed back against crossplay SPECIFICALLY with other consoles. Look at what happened with fortnite. They had to piss off a lot of people before they would allow it to go forward: grudgingly and slowlyKillJiggy said:Yall do realize PS4 is still reluctant to allow crossplay, nothing the devs could do if they wanted to.
-
The reason that there isn't a skillcheck or such is because an escape attemp takes like 3 seconds. On the other hand, its a random chance as to if they escape or not. I've had several situations where I was caught in a trap, and they hit me and left to chase another, and 2 full minutes later I was still trying to get out of the trap. No addons.dontTouchMyGens said:I like your idea of adding skillchecks. It is really odd that there are none currently. However, I still think that survivors should not be able to free themselves or at least it should take much longer (as long as self-heal maybe).
-
Also, that image would do well in that meme format "10 images taken right before disaster" or whatever.
Good times though. Especially since I had the ritual to tier-up 4 times.
-
@House said:
played a game (not my first) where a survivor was body blocking me at the pallets so the killer could get me. How do you report these people who ruin the game? The report button seems like a cosmetic design, i’d like this type of stuff followed up..If it's on console, they can't do anything, it's up to sony/microsoft. If it's on PC, you can do it, say exactly what happened, and if you really want to, follow it up with a ticket on their website with more details, etc.
-
So far its been fairly easy to see if a killer will hardball or if he'll be friendly: if he burns a petal, yes, if not, play ball. Doubly if they burn a regular BP offeringHaven't had a chance to play killer. I'll probably softball if they burn offerings
-
@RWoodrow Thank you!
-
Also today I learned that the markup doesn't effect the titles of discussions. Well, that happened.
-
@Dwight_Confusion said:
I'm also understanding and nice to the devs.I'm not posting around crying about how I can't get all 7 outfits for free.
That isn't what I'm about. I'm complaining about how a 13 day event is giving us little grind to unlock 3/21 pieces.
It just seems lackluster. The event, the ideas are great, but the rewards are subpar. 6/21?
Please?
I would be happy with 9/21. Or rather, sell them as whole pieces, don't allow them to be broken up, and just do 3/7. That's just under half, and I can accept that easily.
I like the event itself. But requiring A MINIMUM of 5 hours of grinding (30 vials needed for a full outfit, one full vial needed for the currency, assuming you can get a full vial each match on both sides every single match. 30 matches, taking 10 minutes each (I'm shooting underneath what it is, by the way) is 300 minutes. That's 5 hours. But being realistic, you aren't going to get a full vial every single match, and if you are going for the flowers, that means the match is going to be even longer. That's also discounting lobby time, etc.) to get 1/7th (or 14%) of what's on offer. Or, I can drop three times more money on the cosmetics than I did on the game itself.
Frankly, I would prefer overwatch's lootboxes. I might not get everything, but I sure as ######### will be getting more than just one thing.
I do like the event itself. But I would like at least a quarter of what you're offering. What's the point of having a public event if you're going to hold almost everything behind a paywall? It's like going to a public party, but you're only allowed in the lobby for free, and you have to bring a case of wine to get to the rest of the party.
By my math, that's over $60 for all the event skins (not including the one you get for free).
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Overall, I think they are taking the game in the right direction. I agree that the hooking animation needs adjusted. It just looks silly now and doesn't match the actual progress bar. I definitely like the new blind effect when playing as a killer. It is much, much easier on the eyes. I like the changes to Haddonfield. It is much easier to navigate. I don't think Sabotage was tuned up enough to become meta. I expect some people will experiment with Sabotage for a little while before they realize that it is still a pretty bad strategy.I think the largest change that will have the greatest impact on the game is the change to healing. I think that was a good change though. I agree with all of the perk changes, but I don't think any of them will have a large impact on the meta. The Spirit is pretty close to where I would like to see her. Those were nice changes. If they would just lose the necessity to have a full charge before using her ability then she would be set.
I'm going to disagree with you on the change to sabotaging... not the perk itself, but the action. With the changes to the hook spawning logic, it can now be a very valuable strategy. I actually had a game the other day where I found an Alex's toolbox in a chest (plunderer's instinct) and I decided to break the hooks on half the map. She downed me in the area, and had to drop me and leave me because she knew she couldn't get me to a hook. I did end up leaving with the toolbox
On the main topic, I'm happy with the patch. Nothing major (exceptions being the hook spawning logic and healing), but many, many, MANY small changes that I appreciate. A small one I really love is being able to see the offerings in the pause menu. So many matches I've started without seeing the screen and was like "Uh...what was burnt, again?"
-
@Demonsouls1993 said:
Hatch is a stupid mechanic oh look 3 kills let's give the last survivor a free escape there should be no hatch ur team died before all gens are done u should die toOh hey, I remember you from the "delete the damn hatch" thread. Again, work on grammar. Hard to take someone serious when they put "u" and "ur." Secondly, it isn't a "free escape" Does 160 uninterrupted seconds of working on two different generators count as free? If so, I suggest hiring an accountant to take care of your finances.
And to quote something I say later in this post, and the same thing I said in that thread: (in regards to doing generators if the hatch was not in the game) So why should they? If it was me, I wouldn't bother: I would stealth around, gather a few more points here and there, and literally hide for as long as it took for you to disconnect. I can't win the game, it's physically impossible. Why should YOU get a free win, if I can't possibly win?
And I prefer playing killer, by the way.
@TigerKirby215 said:
@Malakir said:
Let's say nobody but you did gens. you did 2 genes, your mates died because they prefer road and say hi to the killer. Plus the math for gens and hatch spawn is legit, number of general done - survivors alive plus one to spawn the hatch. The problems are other things like the boring stand offsBasically this. The Survivors still did their job (admitedly poorly) so the Survivor who did the "best" job should at least have a chance to escape. Taking it from a perspective of a Survivor it is pretty much impossible to do 3 gens solo against a killer.
The problem with the hatch is really how unintutive for both sides it is. I think the ability to close the hatch for the tradeoff of powering the exit gates was good. You can trade the single exit point for two exit points with a delay; perfectly managable for a Hillbilly or another high mobility killer.
Another concept I personally had was to place a "key ring" in the basement that would have a dull key on it. (I assume the key would only spawn if you were the last survivor though.) This would give the killer two points to defend (one that they actually know the location of) instead of just forcing them to find the hatch, but at the same time the killer wouldn't just be able to camp the key ring since a survivor could still do gens to open the gates. It would also provide more use for the basement and actually make perks like Territorial Imperative useful.I agree. 2 generators of work isn't something that should go completely unrewarded. Beyond that, if there was no hatch, and all but one survivor is dead, and there's 3 generators left to do, what should they do? The moment they work on one (or finish, if it got that far), they die. No ifs, ands, or buts, they die. So why should they? If it was me, I wouldn't bother: I would stealth around, gather a few more points here and there, and literally hide for as long as it took for you to disconnect. I can't win the game, it's physically impossible. Why should YOU get a free win, if I can't possibly win? I say this as someone who prefers playing killer, by the way.
And I agree, the endgame with one survivor left, and the hatch available is awkward. If you hunt for them, they usually find the hatch. If you camp it, you end up in a waiting game (or they do a gen, depends on how many are left). The problem is that the killer has nothing to really DO after they find the hatch. If the survivor finds the hatch first, they go in. If the killer finds the survivor first, they do a chase. If the killer finds the hatch first..... ???? Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing what they will be doing to rework that moment/kind of endgame. It's really the only true weakpoint of the game.
-
This is the first time I've heard the original themes. I find them interesting, and I quite like them. I do hope they follow this pattern moving forward: Play the new theme until the mid-chapter, then revert to the original. I joined during the clown chapter, and I did like that theme, not going to lie. Plus the spirit's theme.
-
I recently just bought myers, and haven't spent a huge amount of time playing him (he isn't highly leveled yet) but I have to say...he's fun. Getting gen grabs is hilariously fun.
-
Terrortot said:thesuicidefox said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but PS players got DBD for free recently. BVHR needs to get with Xbox Team and have DBD on Games for Gold sometime by the end of the year. I feel like I run into the same people all the time and I'm pretty sure it's because this game is not that popular on Xbox.
Maybe we will get console crossplay, sony is testing it with fortniteFortnite is only getting crossplay with other consoles from ps4 because sony got a LOT of backlash when they innitially didn't allow it and locked accounts used on a ps4 from being used on other consoles.Dead by daylight doesn't have enough weight behind it. If anything, crossplay between xbox and pc is the most likely scenario (and one I would be ok with), and that's frankly asking for the moon. -
@ZombieGenesis said:
I love the survivor reply "Nah, we like it the way it is. Just stop using it(we like that even more!)"The thing is Ruin isn't that intimidating. I used to be intimidated by it when I played survivor now not so much. I just power through. Even so leaving it as is AND taking it off of a hex might be a bit much. Maybe it's power should be linked to how many gens there are left. Either it starts strong and gets weaker the more gens they do or it starts weak and gets stronger the fewer gens are left. Or just make it's effect not quite as intense.
The problem I have with ruin isn't that it's a hex, that it effects everyone, etc etc etc. I have one issue: skill checks can trigger while the generator is still in that 3-second no progress phase. Meaning it can very easily snowball and get 3 skillcheck back to back and undo literally all your progress.
Honestly, if they made it just so that another skillcheck couldn't trigger while the progression is stopped from the ruin effect, that would solve most of my issues with it.
Though having it scale its power to how many generators are left is an interesting idea.
-
I can one-up ya. Wraith, pale rose. Down a survivor right *before* the last gen pops. Another survivor, healthy, tries to taunt me etc, and I just walk up to him and smack him down.Boss said:So i finally had one of these moments...
- I chase someone Healthy
- They're about to vault a window
- But i'm close enough to hit them with a lunge
- During the lunge, the final Generator activates
- NOED activates and i down them in 1-hit
This was satisfying asf.
-
1, face away from the window. It also is teaching you a valuable lesson: pay attention to where you face/are positioned when you pick up a survivor. If you can't be flashlighted if your facing a wall.2, I agree that it's an issue that survivors can block the hook, but yeah, just hit them. Also consider dropping them to chase down the others. No one can get up if everyone's down.3, gen tapping is a meh counter strategy TO the "bandaid" perk ruin. Gen tapping is a weak work around to the ruin perk, a strategy that can easily and literally blow up in tyeir faces. Gen tapping is slower than just working on it.4, the point of the game is to avoid the killer. Like tag back in schooldays, running is fun but risky, but hiding and never being seen is the better strategy
-
Yes, there's a difference. It mostly has to do with the lighting and textures though, from what I'm seeing.
-
@Rebel_Raven said:
I'd more liken it to pressure. For some, definitely not all, they camp because they need to draw out survivors, slow the pace of the game, secure the last kill, or some such.Of course some just camp to camp.
Some do it for revenge.
@SovererignKing said:
I only ever truly camp in a few scenarios :
2 : The Gens are done.These are the best examples of why people camp. But I'll list them myself anyways, more or less in order of priority:
1, You pissed me off. I mean, if you first of all managed to piss me off, fair enough. But I want you out of my game for whatever reason, and damn it, you're going.
2, The gens are done. I mean, why shouldn't I?
3, part of a strategy. I don't usually build for camping, but sometimes if they are playing alturistically (or just really well), I'll camp. If they play alturistically, at worst, I lose the hooked person and don't get anyone (fairly rare), more often than not, two of them just trade places on the hook, and sometimes I manage to get more in addition to the first.
4, If I have a ritual for 2 sacrifices on a killer I don't like to play, or I don't have at a very high level. -
In a previous session, one of your answers relating to benedict baker more or less read as "he might have escaped, but maybe he came back in" (in regards to the entity's realm)
The entity's realm is in a different time/space as our world. Does that mean benedict might not have escaped to our world in the same time? (This feels like it would explain the dates on his entries)
-
@AshleyWB Because of reasons I stated in my previous post but don't feel like repeating here
Also what @White_Owl Said four posts above.@Tsulan I may be wrong here, but I don't think they will likely ever include any matchmaking "modes." Biggest reason? It'll split the playerbase. The playerbase for dead by daylight is a good, healthy size. Not massive, not small. Add different queues for different modes? Suddenly there's less players for you to play with. The amount of players in any queue is a 0 sum game. In order for one mode to do well, the other must suffer having less players. Let's say exactly half the active players decide to only play that hardcore mode now: That's half as many people playing the normal mode. And both mode will have longer, and more uneven, queues also, because there's only half the normal amount of players.
This is the same reason that they release the maps to all players, instead of just the DLC purchasers (similar to call of duty, etc). By releasing it to everyone, and having it affect everyone, it means there are no splits in the player base. SWF and KYF don't really count, because SWF feeds into the main matchmaking, and KYF is a small side mode, honestly. Plus there's no matchmaking for it, of course.
Let's compare it to say, overwatch. Overwatch has an insane number of players playing it on a daily basis. Blizzard can afford to split the playerbase by modes. Even then, it can be hard to find players for some of the unpopular modes (like certain arcade modes, etc).
-
Such anger and toxicity in this thread, it's incredible. Like @Tsulan Said, back on topic...
I don't think that changing the perspective, or limiting it, would be beneficial to the game as a whole. First of all, if they couldn't see directly behind them, and this was a known fact, any stealth killer would simply have to walk straight towards the back of a survivor on, say, a generator, ESPECIALLY if they were solo (in game, or specifically on that action). They would get grabbed or hit, end of story. In order to work against this, they would have to stop working on the generator, turn X degrees, look to what was previously directly behind them, then turn and get back on the generator. That's a bit much.
Also, there's a reason that proper stealth games implement cover systems, especially in first person games. Because it's hard to properly judge where your avatar is based solely on a first-person camera. Not impossible, mind you, but enough so that cover systems are generally worthwhile. I would also like to point out that many games that are played in first person shift TO third person while in cover, particularly while doing stealth. That way you can actually SEE what you're fighting/avoiding WHILE stealthing/fighting. Deus Ex Human Revolution and Mankind Divided spring to mind.
As far as say, looping goes, the killer has a visual cue as to know where the survivor is, even if they lose line of sight (namely scratch marks, but also blood). The survivor doesn't, but they have an easier time keeping LOS in the first place, due to their different perspective. This is also important to remember that one is chasing, and the other is being chased. If the chased has no way of knowing properly where the chaser is, that's not a great situation. Also, it's ignoring the fact that, like with the generators at the start, you would have to turn your body in order to see them. It's just an inconvenience. A minor, unneeded annoyance.
And finally....Cameras like that, in video games, with limited viewing angles, restricted in the back, etc? Been done. Plenty of times. And every time, it's just annoying. Pointlessly annoying.
-
@Doc_W__HOLLIDAY said:
Maybe make it a setting rather than an offering. Some people (myself included) would find the extra challenge and immersion quite fun!I was thinking about that, or make it a mode (no hud for anyone in the match), but then I was thinking about how frustrating it can be to not have enough bloodpoint offerings. Besides, we don't have any "Pro: but con" type offerings. Plus, more bloodpoint offerings are ALWAYS welcome.
-
The healing nerf helps it a bit, but all in all, its not super useful by itself. However, it's biigest draw is how it acts with OTHER perks. With bloodhound, it draws a bright line right to them. Anything that interacts with the wounded state is better with it, because they spend longer IN the wounded state
-
Only thing for me is to not be rude...and that goes for both sidesOnly had one person get upset with me for not respecting the 4%, and my main reaction was "oh, didn't realize. Whatever :P"
-
@Peasant said:
Correct me if I'm wrong folks, but weren't brown flashlights an in-game items many months ago?Not according to the wiki. If there was, it was well before my time.
-
When I first started playing, I read the base killer descriptions. Billy and nurse didnt sseem overly interesting, (and they still don't) and the trapper seemed pretty basic. Running around invisible and throwing weapons? Those sound interesting. I played the wraith a bunch before trying huntress. I like her gameplay because the usual defenses don't work on her (pallets and windows are potentially traps, etc).I tried all the paid only dlc killers, and I really liked the pig and the shape. Freddy was meh, and leatherface outright wasnt fun.
-
Ultra rares (for every character) should be game changingly powerful. Rainbow map with a crystal bead? Game changing. Pink key? With addons, game changing (welll, game ending). Huntress' hatchet heads, myers infinite EW3, etc
-
@xmenfanatic said:
I can’t say I have gotten three disconnects, but I can genuinely claim having more games WITH a disconnect then without. Not including the games where killers disconnect at the loadout screen.Survivors who DC are selfinsh too, DCing is the worst
I've never had 3 disconnects as a survivor...but I did have it happen once as the killer. I took pity on the poor remaining survivor :P
-
To give two examples, I've been levelling up Nea most recently. I have her at 32, and I've been exclusively buying items, offerings, and addons that I actually WANT (except what I'm forced to buy, of course, or what I get in the mystery boxes). I have a total of 4 flashlights. Two yellow, two green. I have a total of 9 addons for flashlights..... IF you ignore the brown ones. With the brown ones, I have 21 addons. The ratio of items to addons in the bloodweb is good, if the brown addons weren't in play.
Now, David King. I was levelling him prior to Nea. 41, and 4 flashlights. 3 yellow, 1 green. I have 8 addons of yellow or better quality. And again, 12 common addons. I mean, I don't generally complain about the bloodweb, I think it's done well in many regards, but this one in particular...is quite annoying. I mean, it's over 70K bloodpoints between two characters I won't even have the chance to use, unless I very specifically hunt for flashlights in chests, and bring them out.
Not exactly a grade A "absolutely must fix this now," but this is one of those smaller tweeks that would benefit players more than they would notice.
-
I'm mobile, so could one of you lovely people tell me what the mint rag does?