Coffeecrashing
Coffeecrashing
About
- Username
- Coffeecrashing
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@tyantlmumagjiaonuha said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712532#Comment_3712532
Although they say they are aware of it, they probably don't know how to fix it or do a kill switch. Or perhaps they have decided that there is no problem because the survivors have been able to escape. That's ridiculous. Until this issue is resolved, I can't even play Survivor because I don't want to get banned all together because I'm seen as a teammate with Survivor who abuses Glitch.
If BHVR is aware of the problem, then this ticket should say ACKNOWLEDGED, because that means BHVR confirmed there is a bug.
-
Someone from BHVR just redirected people to this thread, and said "As already mentioned, the Team is aware of and working on this."
How are we supposed to know "as already mentioned" and "the Team is aware of and working on this"?
- I don't see where BHVR "as already mentioned" they are working on this issue? It's not in this thread, and I have no idea where the "as already mentioned" is?
- I don't see a "the Team is aware of and working on this". All I see is this thread is "under review", which I thought means "we're not even sure if this problem is happening"? I thought the status would be ACKNOWLEDGED if BHVR confirmed the bug is occurring?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712055#Comment_3712055
Do you want to discuss that or not?
If you aren't interested in discussing it there's no point engaging.
What is the point in discussing it? You labeled this thread "you can't weaponize DS", which means you refuse to change your mind too.
Because if you were considering both sides, you should have named the thread something like "can DS be weaponized".
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712042#Comment_3712042
Considering this whole thread is about the fact you can't weaponise DS, and you're admitting you don't want a conversation, there was no point in you commenting here to begin with.
I commented because it is possible to weaponize DS.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712026#Comment_3712026
Tunnelling survivors off the hook means chewing through their layers of anti-tunnel, one of which - DS - is now quite powerful. You then, at the end of this, have occupied one survivor for an additional hook state.
Ignoring the survivor trying to weaponise DS means you don't have to chew through their anti-tunnel layers, at most only having to hit their Endurance once if they block a doorway, and at the end of it you've occupied two survivors.
In terms of progressing your objective and slowing down the survivor objective, ignoring the survivor is the better choice.
Why would I care about the survivors you're playing against…? I'm speaking from the killer perspective here, pretty obviously.
Many survivors want to weaponize DS, when it's convenient for them, which is often when they have multiple health states to body block with. It saves time to just tunnel these survivors off the hook, so they don't have the time to set up their DS combo.
You will never ever convince me that it's better to ignore survivors that try to weaponize DS. Just wanted to mention that, so we're both on the same page.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712000#Comment_3712000
No, the counterplay is to ignore them, or to slug them in the few cases where they can bodyblock tight doorways.
That is far more to your benefit than hard tunnelling them through the tools designed to make that take more time.
No, the counterplay is to tunnel survivors off the hook. Remember that not every survivor uses DS, and over the course of many games, the time saved by tunneling survivors that don't have DS, makes up for the time lost by tunneling survivors that have DS. Also, if a survivor does have DS, it's best to just attack them immediately, to stop whatever DS combo they might want to do.
Also, if you honestly think my strategy is bad, then you should be happy that I'm doing this strategy, because it means that, according to you, I'm worse off doing this, which is a benefit to the survivors I'm playing against.
-
@jesterkind said:
I've seen a fair amount of discussion around the forums lately about whether or not survivors weaponising DS is a problem, or how to fix the problem of survivors weaponising DS, and rather than toss a response out into the sea of answers in a thread that isn't really about what I have to say anyway, I figured I'd make my own post.
My problem with these threads is that the central claim is rarely examined, so let's do that here. Can survivors currently weaponise DS?
No.
They can certainly try, they can run directly into your face and start trying to bodyblock, but they can't actually force it anymore. The best they can do is try and make themselves enticing bait, but it's always on the killer to fall for it, and the killer can always avoid eating the DS.
If you're in this position, the counterplay is extremely simple: Ignore them. If they're in a tight doorway, hit them, then ignore them. That's it. Weaponising DS no longer exists.
Worst case scenario you're slugging one survivor and chasing a second, which is obviously more in your favour than if that first survivor went to go do generators somewhere- and that's the worst case scenario.
The counterplay is to tunnel every survivor off the hook, to prevent them from weaponizing DS. It's even better when you can hit a survivor during basekit BT, to deactivate any OTR they might have. Killers don't know which survivors might want to weaponize DS, so the best strategy is to just assume EVERY survivor might want to weaponize DS.
-
@Blueberry said:
I don’t understand how so many people are okay with a 40 second Victor hostage hold on every.single.injure. This has to be from a solely survivor perspective and not having actually played the killer. Playing an m1 killer with no power for minutes on minutes of every match should just intuitively sound like bad design and unfun to anyone.
40 second Victor hostage on every single injure AND every single endurance hit. If the early recall gets nerfed, then reworked Twins will be a massive nerf compared to the pre-reworked Twins.
And Victor needs to latch onto endurance hits, or he needs to be immune to kicking on an endurance hit. Otherwise we’re back to Victor getting kicked after every endurance hit, which is super clunky.
-
@BlightedDolphin said:
They are bugged right now. Victor isn’t meant to be able to be recalled after 10 seconds of latching on to someone, only when he is idle. Also the glow effect that tells you when you can kick him is bugged and doesn’t work all the time, making it look like you can’t kick him when actually you can.
Once that bug is fixed Twins will pretty much play the same as they did before but be less clunky. None of the counter play to them was removed, it’s just some bugs making them stronger then they actually are.
Twins will actually be more clunky if the recall goes back to 30 seconds, because the regrowth timer is longer now, which means Victor hostages would force Twins to be an M1 killer for longer than they did before the rework.
And because of the Twins rework, Victor now latches onto survivors on endurance hits, which means every endurance hit is now an opportunity to hold Victor hostage.
This means Twins would have their power held hostage for longer periods of time, and would have their power held hostage more often, than before the Twins rework.
-
I still don’t know why people keep saying the early recall is 10 seconds, as if Victor was immediately useable after 10 seconds. It actually takes a bit over 20 seconds to unbind Victor again, right?
10 seconds for the early recall + 10 seconds to regrow Victor + 0.75 seconds to unbind Victor, + whatever time is takes to camera switch to Victor. There’s also X seconds of time for Victor to actually get back to the survivor.
The current recall process, which overall takes 20+ seconds should be a good balancing point for Victor latching onto a survivor, right? It can’t honestly be intended for this whole process to take 40+ seconds, if the “early recall” timer goes back to 30 seconds????????And remember that Victor latches onto endurance hits, so Twins wouldn’t even be able to avoid be held hostage by only using Victor on injured survivors. Every DS hit, every OTR hit, etc, is potentially another 40+ seconds of Victor hostage.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710731#Comment_3710731
Sorry if what I said came across to you that way, as that's not what I'm saying, let me try to clarify.
In regards to statement 2) I don't believe I ever talked about how "nothing should ever be nerfed", because I simply don't believe that statement. Things that are game breaking, or blatantly unfair, such as old sabo when hooks didn't respawn or the twins in PTB, I would consider those unfair and deserving of a nerf. What I think we both disagree on is the value this new DS buff gives- I do not believe is deserving of a nerf, and you do. Simply put I'm under the impression that you believe it is overpowered, and I do not. So it's less a conversation about "why people are upset about DS being used this way feels hypocritical", which is the point of my post, and more about, "DS shouldn't have been buffed," which I do disagree with.
In regards to statement 1) Breaking it down as basically as possible I said that if one side is allowed unfun things then the other side should as well. I do beleive this is fair. If one side has access to something strong, so should the other. If you disagree with this, then I suppose we simply disagree on a fundamental level, as I don't see how 1 side having access to something the other side does not, is fair or fun in any capacity.
You just said “things that are blatantly unfair are deserving of a nerf”. That means this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is unfun for the other side, because “blatantly unfair” overrides that completely.
This argument has always been whether or not weaponizing DS is blatantly unfair, and deserving of a nerf. -
I opened this bug report in May 2023….. which means that bug report is A YEAR OLD, and STILL has no feedback from BHVR.
Really? A full year, for a bug that steals hits from killers, and could happen in any game? And no one from BHVR cared enough to look into it within the past 12 months????
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710571#Comment_3710571
I don't disagree with this. I believe that both sides have access to things that are very unfun for the other. This isn't new in my opinion either as unfun playstyles, perk combinations etc. have been around since the beginning of the game. If you want to say that nothing either side feels unfun should exist entirely, then that's a different discussion I think. But my point is calling out the hypocrisy, which in order for it to be hypocritcal then both things you're comparing need to be the same, hence the "x is fine because y exists". It wouldn't be hypocritical if that wasn't the case. You could see my point as "justification" but DS was conceptualized in order to counter tunneling, it's an annoying symptom but not the cause. It's not justifying anything, it's the result of the current state of the game now and the way it was when the perk first came out.
I believe either both sides should have strong perks/items/addons etc. or neither should. I don't think this is an unfair take at all, I would argue that acknowledging unfun strats/perks/addons/items etc. on one side and then denying the other side those same things would be unfair.
Statement 1) “Both sides of the game should be allowed to have things that the other side thinks is unfun”
Statement 2) “Nothing in the entire game should ever be nerfed, because the other side of the game has unfun things too”
There is a HUGE leap from statement 1 to statement 2.
-
@Ebonbane2000 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710269#Comment_3710269
Okay. a slugged DS weaponizer, a survivor in chase, and 2 on gens. Compared to 3 survivors on gens while you're trying to get the 2nd hit on the 4th survivor.
Which scenario benefits the killer the most?
Possibly scenario 2.
If the two survivors that aren’t repairing in scenario 1, are slowing down the killer’s progress enough, then scenario 2 benefits the killer more than scenario 1.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710491#Comment_3710491
I’ve sortve explained my thoughts on using a worst case scenario as a justification for buffing or nerfing something in a previous reply, so I won’t go into a ton of detail here, but essentially I agree that if used correctly and with other perks, it can be a very good time waster, but I don’t agree that it is busted or broken or that the value it gives is so great that a game can’t still be winnable. I think people don’t look at DS as just DS and they tend to lump it with other perks that synergies well together to make something stronger. And while it may be annoying to deal with, it is not uncommon for either side even before the new DS buff came into play. Stacking 4 slow downs is a pretty common meta right now, and while it can be frustrating to deal with, is still possible to win with the right counter play.
As far as being “punished for the kind play” I struggle to understand this when tunneling often isn’t because someone did something wrong, it’s simply to be as efficient as possible and get out that 1 survivor to make it a 3v1 because it’s easier to win. Who from their perspective is like being “punished for playing the game”. That’s what I don’t get as people are upset that this offensive DS could potentially “punish” a killer that didn’t “deserve” or “ask” for it, but tunneling isn’t seen as “punishing” and it doesn’t matter if the survivor “deserved” it or not because it is accepted as a valid playstyle. This is where it feels like a big double standard.
Your argument is basically “X is fine, because the other side of the game has unfun things too”. This argument doesn’t work, because it can be used to justify almost everything….
“For the people + buckle up is fine, because tunneling exists”
“Background Player + flashbang is fine, because tunneling exists”
“Bully SWFs are fine, because tunneling exists”
Can we just flip this, and apply it to killers too?……”Pain res + Pop is fine, because voice comms exist”
“Sweating for the 4k is fine, because voice comms exist”
“Skull merchant is fine, because voice comms exist”
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710245#Comment_3710245
I can understand where you’re coming from. I just still don’t see how it is any different than tunneling or slugging or 3 gens etc. You could say tunneling punishes the person being tunneled, but the reply to that is that it’s nothing personal and gg go next. You could say that slugging for the 4k is punishing the last 2 survivors who are forced into this cat and mouse game, using a slugged survivor as bait and left to bleed out for 4 minutes, but again I’ve seen the reply as it’s a valid strategy and slugging for the 4k is perfectly fine. Etc. My point is that this idea of something not being used as “intended” isn’t new, and when anti-face camping, base kit BT, when generator kicks became limited, people were very upset because they believed all were valid play styles that didn’t deserve to be changed, even if those ways to win were not intended to be used in that way. Those play styles are still strong and still defended and accepted to this day. But adding 2 seconds to the DS so it becomes viable as a defensive perk, and usable as an offensive perk, is not being accepted as a strategy at all. It feels like a double standard, and I don’t understand it.
The correct comparison is 3 gen and face camping. Both were considered “valid strats”, but BHVR nerfed them anyway because BHVR didn’t intend for killers to get that much value out of those strats.
The same should apply to DS, where the weaponizing should be nerfed, because survivors get too much value from it, and it’s not the intended usage of the perk. -
@Ebonbane2000 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710089#Comment_3710089
That comparison was a little off. It's not 3:1 or 2:0; it's 3:0 (3 survivors on gens while ur chasing one) or 2:0 ( 2 survivors on gens while you chase 2).
I don't understand how you don't see the benefit of keeping 2 survivors busy instead of 1. Having two survivors in your sights (one of which will be downed pretty fast) is indeed better than chasing and downing a healthy survivor; then finding another healthy survivor to chase and down.
While it may be annoying to have to slug the unhooked while you chase down the unhooker, it's worth it to give the many who don't weaponize DS an extra chase when being tunneled.
The math is wrong. “How many survivors are doing generators” is the wrong question.
The correct question is “how fast is the killer progressing their objectives, compared to how fast the survivors are progressing their objectives”.
-
@hermitkermit said:
With the new DS buff, many are talking about how they hate that people are using it as offensively instead of defensively. My question is why is it considered toxic to use it this way? I don't see many people talking about using a perk "wrong" unless it's about DS, I didn't even know you could use a perk wrong. It feels like a strat that people don't like, similar to tunneling or slugging, but it is still a valid strat, no? Not saying outright it's hypocritical I just don't understand how it's considered to be unfair or wrong when these other strats in the game are widely accepted and often encouraged. Thank you in advance for giving your explanations! Just trying to understand everyones point of view.
DS is intended to be an anti-tunnel perk, which is why the conspicuous action list was added. But the conspicuous action list isn't good enough, because many people are still weaponizing DS against killers that weren't trying to tunnel.
Using pre-nerfed Eruption to hold an extended 3 gen, was considered using a perk "wrong", which is why that perk got nerfed.
And the "feels like a strat that people don't like" statement doesn't work, because BHVR nerfed extended 3 gens and facecamping, and they were "strats that people don't like".
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707144#Comment_3707144
Comp player = someone who hosts tournaments? Excuse me xD so the guy who moderates a football match is a football player? ^^
I don't think he has a comp mindset at all... He seems to mostly play chill... It just seems like that because he is good at the game.
But even if he was, that would speak even more towards the point of twins being too strong right now... Because when even comp players cannot figure out what to do against a killer that can slug the entire team without much effort then what are 4 solos or pub players in general supposed to do?
Or are you seriously telling me that what he did in those games on his stream was so hard to achieve that only someone with 10k hours could have done it?
The last time I tried watching a comp game, anti-face camp was banned because it was considered "unbalanced" lol. Survivors had to pretend that entire feature didn't exist. And the game was based on hook states instead of number of survivors killed. And duplicate survivor perks were banned. And brand new parts were banned.
And here's an example list of banned survivor perks. Over 50 survivor perks were banned in every game. Buckle up + for the people is a banned combo. Background player + flashbang is a banned combo.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706830#Comment_3706830
Well as Hens for example described it holding Victor hostage is basically the counterplay to them, because everything else is just the killer player missing and with that super low recall time you can just 4 men slug way too easy... He injures them faster than they can heal and there is no reason for him to pick up.
I mean sure losing your power for that long sucks, but what are the survivors supposed to do otherwise? Run to the opposite side of the map and jump into a locker?
Comp DBD involves less than 0.01% of the players, and isn't representative of public DBD games at all. There are many public DBD games, where Twins lost, but the survivors never held Victor hostage. So it's not a mandatory counterplay.
There's also a big difference between a really fast 10 seconds and a really slow 30 seconds. BHVR, could instead limit Victor hostages to 15 seconds or 20 seconds, and try that.
And yes, the locker counterplay is still there. I've been in many games in the past, where a survivor jumped in a locker, but Charlotte was so far away that she couldn't get to that locker in 10 seconds. I've also had many games where Victor knocked someone to the ground, then immediately got kicked by someone else, and that someone else healed the slugged survivor off the ground before Charlotte could get there. I've also had games where a survivor was at a very safe dropped pallet, and Victor literally couldn't reach the survivor because the pallet was that safe.
-
I just want to reiterate what I just said in another thread….
If Twins goes back to 30 second Victor hostages, then I’ll stop playing Twins again, and I’ll consider this entire Twins rework to be a complete failure.
It’s literally the only thing I cared about, and wanted fixed. -
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706682#Comment_3706682
yes that is a bug, that's something that's been decided as being needed and 10s is far too short. I believe we're still looking at keeping it the same as it was previously, which I believe is 30s but would have to check, there's no current plans to change that but thank you for your feedback.
I really hope BHVR changes their minds on the Victor hostage situation.
The Twins rework was supposed to fix the Victor hostage situation, and I don’t understand why that needs to be completely reverted. Why can’t we try 20 seconds, and see how the feedback goes?
Victor hostages just heavily encourage Twins to prioritize injured survivors, which can often be a survivor that was recently unhooked. It’s basically punishing Twins if they want to prioritize a healthy survivor, instead of tunneling an injured survivor.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706006#Comment_3706006
That's actually a bug, hopeful of a fix in an upcoming hotfix
Also if Victor is not triggering the antifacecamp feature that might also be a bug, as I think he's supposed to.
That’s a bug? Does that mean it’s intended that survivors should be able to hold Victor hostage for 30 seconds? (I think it was 30 seconds?)
We waited literal years for a Twins rework, and BHVR still thinks it’s fine when survivors hold Victor hostage? That’s the most unfun thing about playing Twins, and it was the #1 I was hoping the Twins rework would address.
If 10 seconds is a bug, then can the reworked Twins get some number like 15 seconds instead? I had stopped playing Twins before the rework, because there were so many survivors that would hold Victor hostage, that I didn’t even want to bother with Twins… and if Victor hostage is coming back, then I’ll stop playing Twins again. -
Many people showed concern that survivors will try to weaponize DS if it gets buffed, but we still have zero feedback from BHVR about this concern.
Is BHVR ok with survivors purposely weaponizing DS against killers that weren't trying to tunnel? Does BHVR think survivors won't try to weaponize DS?
-
@ExcelSword said:
Okay so I was ready to play Twins today just being content with the few changes in the patchnotes, but there is actually quite a few things that went unmentioned or I didn't immediately realise.
First off, recalling Victor at anytime. This is amazing already, as you will always have Victor ready to go when you find a survivor. But one thing that wasn't made obvious is that since you can always recall Victor after around 10 seconds, you will see his aura on survivors he latches to after 10 seconds. This is a massive change, as you can follow after the survivor and Victor will make sure they can't hide from you, then you can recall him to get a down with him again.
I am not sure this is intended, since it was not mentioned in the patch notes, but Victor no longer has a 5 second cooldown after downing a survivor. It seems to be around 3 seconds. He does have a slight movement speed penalty, but it is not as severe as before. I really like this to be fair. It makes Victor feel smooth to down someone and then immediately attack another survivor, or swap back to Charlotte.
However, I am a little concerned that it makes it a bit hard to kick Victor now. If you run forced hesitation I would say it is nearly impossible actually. I think that Victor shouldn't be able to move after downing an injured survivor. This simplifies the counterplay for survivors, while not making him feel clunky for the killer if they want to swap back to Charlotte.
Victor can latch onto survivors who are injured with the endurance status affect. I am sure this is a bug, but to be fair I don't actually mind it.
Addon changes; why were there no changes to baby teeth!? seriously, this is probably one of the worst addons in the entire game, especially because it is not likely that I will wait for survivors to crush Victor, I will probably be recalling him myself.I hope the “Victor latches on endurance hits” stays in the game. It’s really annoying when survivors dead hard Victor (or is aggressively body blocking with OTR), then Victor bounces off of endurance, then Twins has to wait for that survivor to kick Victor, then has to wait for Victor to switch back to Charlotte, then has to wait for Charlotte to be able to move. It’s better to just skip all those middle steps, and just switch back to Charlotte.
Remember that we now have buffer DS, which can combo with current OTR and DH, so there will be more people running endurance perks.
-
Thank you for taking away "survivors holding Victor hostage" problem.
I do like this version of Twins way better than the PTB Twins. The whole concept of the PTB Twins was really bad, and I hope BHVR doesn't try to move around the numbers to make it work. It is ok that current Twins can slug, and I wish BHVR would stop this crusade where every killer strategy is demonized (i.e. slugging), and attempts are made to nerf them.
I also don't know why killer strategies are demonized (i.e. camping, tunneling, 3-gen, slugging)…. but everything survivors do is fine? Why can't we work on survivors that are excessively hiding, or other things that are really unfun for killers? When do we get to the part where survivor strategies get nerfed because they are unfun for killers?
-
@SoGo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703145#Comment_3703145
Wasn't one of the changes the option to recall him back at any time?
Or does it only apply when he is not latched?
The official notes said "Added the ability to recall Victor at any point while he is unbound. (NEW)". When Victor is latched onto a survivor, he's still technically "unbound" from Charlotte, so maybe he can still be recalled? I assumed "unbound" meant "not stuck to someone", but I never tested it on the PTB, so I'm not sure?
But if Charlotte can just recall Victor whenever he's latched onto a survivor, that would be the perfect rework for me. I've had so survivors hold Victor hostage, that I really don't play Twins often, because it's not fun to be stuck as an M1 killer for large portions of the game.
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703319#Comment_3703319
Seems a bit counter-productive tbh. If the person has DS then you're reaffirming their decision to equip the perk. If the person doesn't have DS then you're basically giving them a reason to start equipping it.
Unless there is a very large percentage of players using DS, then it's mathematically better to just tunnel survivors and just pick them up (instead of slugging them). If the game changes, and a very large percentage of players is using DS, then I can re-evaluate this strategy.
But every time a killer hesitates to pick up a survivor, but that survivor doesn't have DS, then the killer has wasted time. And over the course of many games, the time lost hesitating on survivors without DS, will be greater than the time lost by getting hit by survivors with DS.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703216#Comment_3703216
It kinda seems like you were gonna do that regardless.
I currently don’t always tunnel off the hook, especially if I find someone else while a survivor is hooked.
But when 5 second DS is live, it won’t matter if I’m in a chase or not, because when I hear that unhook noise, I should run right over to that hook, so I can tunnel that survivor, just in case they might want to weaponize DS against me.
-
@SignedUp4PTBFeedback said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703216#Comment_3703216
Ok? What I catch from your responses is that you were gonna tunnel anyway no matter what and that you think DS is not powerful enough to deter you from doing it.
The killer doesn’t know if a survivor has DS, so unless a very large percentage of players are using DS, then the killer is better of just picking players up and risking DS.
The only way DS could actually be a tunneling deterrent, is if the killer knows which people have an active DS, so they 100% know if they could be punished if they picked up a survivor.
-
@SignedUp4PTBFeedback said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703202#Comment_3703202
How are you wandering around the map looking for someone else when the player who weaponized DS did it do bodyblock for their teammate presumably? You were already chasing that teammate of theirs.
And if the DS user ran into you while you weren't chasing anyone, then, take your free pressure with them following you around for nothing?Or I could just skip all that, and tunnel people off the hook, so I don’t need to deal with weaponized DS.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703173#Comment_3703173
It’s really not. There’s a clear and easy counter to it in slugging but of course everyone is like “I’m just gonna tunnel them out right off the hook it’s the only way!!”
lol no, it’s just what you want to do to punish survivors for getting a buff to a perk you hate. 🤣🤣🤣 That’s how it always is here. Anytime a survivor perk gets a buff that they don’t like people decide to punish the survivors for using it. If that’s what you’re gonna do then do it, whatever. But let’s stop pretending that you’re only doing it because that’s the “only way to counter it now” when it clearly isn’t. Own up. 😆
It’s mathematically better to just pick up survivors, and risk the chance of DS. Slugging a survivor that doesn’t have DS is a lot of wasted time, and you might need to do this twice per survivor. Even if a survivor does have DS, it’s much faster to just eat the DS, than it would be to leave the survivor slugged and wander around the map looking for someone else.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703136#Comment_3703136
Lmao it’s so funny to me how every time a survivor perk gets a buff it’s always followed by posts of “welp now I’m gonna tunnel everyone out!”
When had that ever not happened? 🤣🤣 Tunnelers were always gonna tunnel regardless. This is no longer the threat that you think it is
Tunneling is literally the counter play to weaponized DS. It’s so damaging for the killer, for a healthy survivor to aggressively body block with OTR + DS + DH, that it’s better to just tunnel everyone off the hook, to prevent that combo from happening.
And it’s not a threat. It’s what I literally ended up doing every game, before the DS nerf, because I had so many survivors weaponize DS against me.
-
Will survivors still be able to hold Victor hostage?
One of the absolute worst parts about current Twins is that if Victor latches onto a survivor, and that survivor refuses to crush Victor, then Charlotte needs to wait 30 seconds before being able to recall Victor.
-
5 second DS = everyone should get tunneled out of the game.
I’ve had so many people weaponize DS against me in the past, when I wasn’t trying to tunnel. I do not want to make that mistake again. Everyone should get tunneled right off the hook, just in case they might want to weaponize DS against me.
-
@Revvium said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3700877#Comment_3700877
I never said #5 playtime makes me right, I asked for you to use some talking points instead of yell into my ear saying i'm stupid. Thank you very much, I'm no longer interested in being shamed for gathering hundreds of Trickster player's feedback and being told its an "Elite group" as if every player I interact with in my public personality is ALL elite. Most of the people I interact with are infuriated by the current state have less than 300 hrs in the game.
For them Trickster is not accessible, my post seeks to alleviate that. Adding more KPS does nothing to alleviate these problems and has left the killer in a stale, bland state. I do not exclusively speak from my perspective, I speak with the voice of many and have put in the effort to gather feedback. You have only sought to shoot my post down when my only intent is to gather feedback, to which you have only reiterated things the character has existed as in the past, Original Trickster is your fantasy of a "Rapid fire shots missed don't matter" Trickster, That version needed extensive changes because it turns out when your misses don't matter neither does the satisfaction from actually hitting your shots.That's not what accessible means. Accessible means that players can actually play and do well with a character. Your group of people can play current Trickster, but they'd rather have the previous Trickster back. Current Trickster is accessible to them.
"Rapid fire shots missed don't matter" is very important for accessibility, and should 100% be a thing. The whole concept of rapid fire is the player shouldn't be expected to have 100% accuracy. Rapid fire means you quickly throw a bunch of knives, and try your best to hit as many as possible.
Edit: Also, I've already gone through all these arguments back in the original feedback threads. I'm done here.
-
It doesn't matter how many hours you've played Trickster. Having an extremely high playtime shouldn't boost your opinions over other people. We get it. You've played this character a lot. If anything, it means you really don't understand how bad the 4.4 Trickster was for the majority of players. Your suggestions might work for your small group of elite gamers, but the vast majority of the players would suffer because of them.
The vast majority of players need a 4.6 killer with rapid fire gameplay. They need to know it's ok to sometimes miss shots, and that they aren't being super punished for missing shots. Main event is also very important for the vast majority of players, because it has 4v1 power, and can greatly help players when survivors are trying to body block for each other. That is what most players need.
-
BHVR has made it clear that their vision of Trickster is a 4.6 killer with rapid fire gameplay, which requires main event having a low activation cost so it can happen frequently.
Current Trickster is much better than previous Trickster, as he's way more reliable now. There are many situations where Trickster really shouldn't be throwing knives, and being a 4.6 killer makes it easier for him to go for M1 hits instead. This (and the removal of recoil) makes Trickster way more accessible to the majority of players, which is a good thing.
-
@Gabrote42 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3699659#Comment_3699659
The thing is that if I lunge, and the survivor moves during a lag peak, I glide off the survivor. But if the short swing happens, 18 times out of 21 it gives me a hit. Like if you had to manually release the saw to hit someone as Billy, you'd prefer if it acted like it does now. I do want it fixed but it does have upside
The problem is the game has proximity checks as completely separate from the damage checks. And if my assumption is correct, that the proximity checks are done on the killer side instead of the server side, then this bug can happen a lot more often during times of latency.
What should happen is that when the killer tries to lunge, it allows the killer to lunge, then it constantly makes hit validation checks. And if the game confirms a hit should happen… then game can yank the camera, or force a short M1 attack, or do whatever else it wants, because it will 100% give the killer the hit.
-
@Gabrote42 said:
This bug happens to me as well, but this actually GIVES me hits, because I play with laggy argentinian connection and the hit validation helps me here. Unless the survivor was 10m away and I had just had a 750ms ping moment. Should get fixed tho.
This mechanic never ever helps the killer.
If you got a hit due to latency, that is an issue with server hit validation, which is a completely separate topic.
-
@EQWashu said:
Let's remember to keep the discussion civil and constructive, please. Also, a reminder that perks in the game are not "exploits", nor are things such as tunneling, slugging, and camping, which are also not reportable. More information on what is (and is not) reportable, or an exploit, can be found here in the Game Rules.
People are claiming the game recently started having a collision bug, and that survivors are exploiting that bug to drop flashbangs from within the killer’s model.
The claimed issue is that flashbangs dropped directly within the killer’s model will successfully work against a killer, even if the killer is directly next to and facing a wall. -
This bug report has existed for around 11 months! And BHVR still refuses to comment on this bug, that steals hits from the killer.
-
@DerpedByDave said:
Yeah It helps if you shake your camera like a mad man or do a little spin into the hit to confuse the aim assist and stop it from messing you up. the fact you can't turn this of especially with it being such an annoyance is beyond me.
That doesn’t stop the forced short M1 attack bug, that can steal hits from the killer.
Nothing can’t block that bug from occurring. The proximity checks happen throughout a lunge, so we can’t even bypass it by starting the lunge while looking away from the survivor.
-
@mizark3 said:
Please just make it an option (Default On). That way newer players can get the benefit of what it is supposed to do, but experienced players can just disable it and having nothing to blame other than themself if things go wrong.
Aim assist is 100% a competitive advantage for survivors, because of how often it steals hits from killers. It never ever actually helps the killer get a hit. Killers never ever benefit from this mechanic.
-
@Reinami said:
Yes, happens at least once a game now.
This was actually super apparent with the oni event. The "auto aim" is clearly not just "aim dressing" and is actually locking onto survivors. With the oni event you would often lock on to survivors over a wall.
Yeah i know it was a goofy event and wasn't expecting it to work 100%, but i'm more saying that the flaws of the auto aim became much clearer due to the event.
It’s doing more than yanking the camera. When a killer tries to lunge, it can forbid the lunge, a force a short M1 attack instead… which often causes the killer to smash into an object they were trying to curve around with a lunge.
-
I have been seeing the forced short M1 attack mechanic, that can steal hits from the killer, happen a lot during the blood moon event and PTBs. Any lag seems to make it worse, which is why I’m wondering if the proximity check is done on the killer side instead of the server side.
-
@ArkInk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3692925#Comment_3692925
If a killer can see every hook, there are no survivors around to challenge said hook so anti-slug procs, and decides they can't make the hook for whatever reason, then sure, this case illustrates the usefulness of a notification whenever anti-slug activates, as it confirms that they can make the hook, which funnily enough actually makes this a killer buff for those that don't slug, and is a pretty decent tool for beginner killers to learn what hooks they can make. Anything else?
No, that's it. I ran out of things to say. You should get a forum achievement for this.
-
@ArkInk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3692905#Comment_3692905
Anti-camp slows depending on the killers distance from the hook, including through walls and floors, meaning the game already tracks a killer's distance from the hook and calculates it's slowdown accordingly. If it can detect that, all it needs to do is detect scenarios wherein a killer is physically incapable of making it to the hook with a survivor despite being in the range of a hook, a process that can only really be achieved through ceilings or walls, which means the game presumably needs to create a pathing line from the downed survivor to the hook, and calculate whether the killer can make the hook using their slowed move speed while carrying versus the time they have available (Agitation and Iron Grasp would change both these variables). Is it new code? Yes. Is it all complex? No, it's just a layer on top of the anti-camp coding.
These are the same devs that beat the camera system into submission for Chucky by coding him as a weapon and managed to include an entire sub-map for Xeno just for when they Tunnel, I think making the computer game run a math problem is more than possible for determining whether a killer can make a hook.
So, in summary for the five posts you've spent trying to break this hypothetical anti-slug, the best you've got is that if a killer downs a survivor next to a hook, thinks they can't make the hook but actually can, they'll proc anti-slug despite thinking it was a necessary play for them? I'd call that a misplay but to each their own I suppose.
No; the entire point of all these posts, is that killers should only be punished for slugging if 1) the slugging was 100% unnecessary and 2) if the killer knows the slugging was 100% unnecessary.
If killers honestly think they can't get a survivor to a hook, then they aren't unnecessarily slugging, and therefore shouldn't be punished.
-
@ArkInk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3692889#Comment_3692889
You've brought the wall thing up at multiple points as if those hooks couldn't simply not be counted. Anti-camp already has a similar restriction depending on where the killer is in relation to the hook, this proposal is just the inverse of that.
- If the killer is right and there's someone nearby, anti-slug didn't proc. If the killer is wrong, then just return back to the slugged survivor?
- Let killers see hooks when they down a survivor instead of picking them up. I've actually had this idea for a while and think it would make the game a lot more beginner friendly. If push comes to shove though, a killer could definitely receive a notification that the survivor is getting anti-slug, and I'd even extend this to anti-camp too.
- Anti-3gen was also a killer nerf, so was Anti-camp. There is abundant precident that these playstyles can be 86'd without breaking the game, and if nixing slugging in this way does somehow destroy balancing, that is indicative of a far greater issue. As well, this still assumes that Anti-slug can be weaponized in a significant way that it does greatly change the way to play beyond just incentivising hooking the survivors you down, and honestly, I haven't seen you give an example that isn't blocked by any of the restrictions I've proposed, sorry.
Anti camp works through walls and ceilings! Do you think it's fair for anti-slug to trigger because of a hook that is behind one or more walls, and the travelable distance is so long that the killer literally can't hook the survivor there?
How do you plan on counting hooks the killer can get a survivor to, and exclude hooks the killer can't get a survivor to?
-
@ArkInk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3692871#Comment_3692871
- A survivor will be able to pick themselves off the ground if they:
-Are downed with a certain range of a hook (not new code, see Make your Choice)
-Aren't on a Pallet.
-Don't have certain perks.
-Aren't around other survivors.
2. The killer doesn't need a notification since proposed Anti-slug doesn't proc if the survivor gets to a certain wiggle timer, meaning the killer can simply play out the hooking scenario like normal without worrying about dropping a survivor and proccing anti-slug. You've made up yet another scenario stopped with a solution pitched three posts ago.
I'm a little bored with this as well, but thank you for your time! It isn't often you can ask an internet stranger to debate you for this long.
Certain range of a hook is unacceptable, because that's not travelable distance. The killer can't carry survivors through walls or ceilings. DBD would need to figure out the shortest travelable (while carrying a survivor) distance to a hook, to determine if it's within range. You can't just say "oh there's a hook within 10 meters so anti slug should happen", if the survivor is against the courtyard wall on Midwich, and the 10 meter away hook is on the other side of the courtyard wall, and the travelable distance is so far that it's literally not possible to get a survivor there if the survivor is wiggling.
Killers should be notified if there is a 100% chance they can hook a slugged survivor for 3 reasons:
- A killer has a valid reason to slug a survivor, if they think someone else might be in the area to interrupt them. The easiest example involves a survivor that purposely gets knocked down in an open cornfield, and the killer already has eaten a background player + flashbang save that game.
- A killer has a valid reason to slug a survivor, if they don't think any hooks are in range. And there might be a nearby hook, that the killer can't see, and doesn't know is there, and the killer honestly thinks no hooks are in range.
- Anti slug is a huge killer nerf, and killers really should be getting SOMETHING as compensation. Trying to frame this whole thing as a 100% killer nerf is awful. If killers are going to be punished when they unnecessarily slug a survivor, then the killer should at least be told when it's unnecessary to slug a survivor.
-
@ArkInk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3692770#Comment_3692770
The proposed mechanic would disable if there are survivors around the slug, you are proposing scenario's that don't even circumvent the restrictions I proposed and have been referring to for three comments. You either fail to understand what I'm proposing or are purposely ignoring any proposed solutions in favor of pretending I'm pitching the same system as in the PTB. Hell, if you want even more solutions to your issue, give it a seven second grace period like anti-camp for killers to maybe kick a gen or challenge a flashy before their timer even starts/pauses.
If survivors can and will weaponize literally everything, I wanna see the op small game build, since clearly anything and everything can be abused regardless of the restrictions or balance of it, right? How about Anti-camp? It's been in the game for a few months and I haven't seen nearly enough salt posts for a mechanic that can give a survivor a free unhook. The restrictions put in place limited it's useability such that not only do killers decide if it activates, but that they also can play around any survivors attempt to turn the mechanic in their favor.
This line of thinking is silly. Survivors aren't super spies about to turn pencils into murder weapons, they're gamers looking for ways to get ahead in a match. If the devs put the proper limitations in place, like they already have for other mechanics designed to counter killer playstyles, they should be able to devise a mechanic that counters a killer's ability to effectively slug multiple survivors for minutes at a time instead of disrupting regular gameplay. They've done it before.
I'm getting bored with this conversation, so how about we just summarize everything:
- Anti slug will only activate if there is a 100% guaranteed chance the killer can hook the slugged survivor. This needs to take into consideration the slugged survivor's perks, the travelable distance to nearby hooks (which requires new code, because DBD currently has no idea what travelable distance means), whether or not any teammates are anywhere near the slugged survivor, and anything else I might have forgotten to mention.
- The anti slug mechanic, will somehow notify to the killer that they have a 100% chance to get the survivor to a nearby hook, to guarantee the fact that if the killer doesn't hook the survivor, then it's 100% because they want to slug the survivor even though they don't need to. And, of course, the killer will be guaranteed to see the auras of all nearby hooks, so the killer will know where the guaranteed hooks are.
That's how anti-slug can work.