DangerScouse
DangerScouse
About
- Username
- DangerScouse
- Joined
- Visits
- 943
- Last Active
Comments
-
Lots of people pretending to care about the environment.
-
@PyramidHeadBigBooty said:
Sure you may say that it all depends on who's using Bubba, obviously, that goes for every killer. But I’ve noticed Bubba's chainsaw lasts more longer than Billy's. And I think that time for Bubba's chainsaw is too OP. With that much time swinging, you can literally hit all survivors near by at once ! I've had a match where Bubba literally pinned down 3 survivors at once. And of course, we were all dead. Also Bubba’s chainsaw is more difficult to avoid than Billy’s. I find this annoying and makes me roll my eyes whenever I see a match and Bubba is the killer. So Idk if it's just me, but I really feel like Bubba's chainsaw can use a de-buff. What do you guy’s think ?
He is not OP. Next topic please.
-
@GannTM said:
Tuesday is the day that I get to finally play as the second most fun killer in the whole game. I can’t wait to make survivors miserable shooting crows across the map and locking down loops (that is a joke please don’t crucify me). PSA: this is the reason my avatar is Spies from the Shadows for the time being because of crow lady.
The reason I’m nervous though is that BHVR for some reason likes gutting strong and fun killers and they might do it to Artist. The only acceptable nerf for her would be to remove getting damaged from idle dire crows, but I better not see some unnecessary change that makes her unfun.
BHVR, you did a great job with the Artist, she’s fun to play as and against, and she isn’t OP at all. Please do not ruin it!
Enjoy your nerf.
-
@Campersbydaylight said:
Dear Dead By Daylight,
PLEASE MAKE IT SO KILLERS CAN'T CAMP HOOKED SURVIVORS ANY LONGER IT IS SO UNFAIR THAT THEY GET TO CHEAT LIKE THIS YET THERE AREN'T MANY TOOLS FOR SURVIVORS TO COUNTER IT SO MY WHOLE TEAM END UP LOSING TO A CAMPER! Please make it so that camping is no longer a thing, I'm begging you!
It's not cheating. Grow up.
-
@sluc16 said:
How is the game even fun for these guys? Just standing there like idiots from hook one.
They don't even make good BPs, and finish the match with 1 or 2 hooks. What's the point?
The other Bubba was letting the side down there.
-
@StarLost said:
Over the past few days, I'm sure we've all seen the various 'Otz hates MMR see video' threads and - catching up on one of his streams recently, I just want to put this thing to bed once and for all.
For those who don't know. Otzdarva is one of the most prolific and influential DbD streamers around, with an amusing 666k on Twitch alone and YouTube videos that rack up views in the millions. He's also a legitimately nice bloke.
So - in a recent stream, he went on to clarify his stance on MMR. In short:
- MMR is not a big problem.
- He sees the benefits of it (implied).
- The problem is that MMR highlights the longstanding problems with the game, particularly from a balance standpoint and the gulf between 'meta' perks and killers and the rest of the roster.
I've essentially said all I've got to say on the matter, and this very much mirrors my own opinions. The issue isn't MMR. The issue is balance.
MMR needs to get binned. Don't care what Otzy whatsisname says.
-
@pizzaduffyhp90 said:
As the title says mine would probably be hoping to get a twitch streamer when I'm Scratch Mirror Myers cause I love reviewing there perspective and listening to them being scared.
Turn it off
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
Good lord, this crowd is tiring.
I can't even be bothered to make a long-winded bit about it-- zero enthusiasm.
Just nonstop woe-is-me, won't someone think of the killers, why are we still here, just to suffer levels of on and on and on pity partying. The way they talk about it, you'd think this is their 9-to-5 full time job than something that should be their enjoyment.
You're not a killer. You're a person at a computer. The moment you give "killer solidarity" and assure another poor up-and-coming killer main with your pained smile that this is just the way it is for your mutual oppressed underclass is when you have officially lost yourself in the sauce. You have stopped being a person at a computer, and you are now a part of the pity party aggregate.
Can you have your complaints about the power of Killers?
You sure can. In fact, normal people do it all the time. I do it. There's a real thing to complain about there, and people who don't treat this game like a bad match is all it's going to take to send you into a heart attack are fully respectable in doing so.
But not this crowd. No, it's personal. It's not like you can just-- drop the game since it's apparently unbearable agony to play killer, and you apparently know this fact every single time you decide load into a game.
Because you can't just drop the drug, right?
No, what you really need to do is keep playing this game you apparently don't enjoy anyway, get real bitter and angry at those dirty coddled survivors and engage in passive-aggressive warfare in between jabs at those damn survivors and damn biased BHVR. Because you have bad matches in an unbalanced multiplayer game, and you're somehow surprised every time.
Jesus.
-
@Iliketoplaykiller said:
I was watching ohtofu last night and he brought up the current state of killers. Tdlr he essentially was saying that killers are being babies because mmr is doing it’s job. I mean sure we’re not 4king every game but a lot of us are still 4K at least 50+ percentages of our games. The mmr is working as intended and putting us against skilled survivors, the way it should be. Kinda was a wake up call to me personally and gave me more perspective on the games I lose. Instead of thinking the game is inbalanced (which I still think it is to a certain degree) I took tofus advice and now am thinking more or less what I did wrong during my matches instead of thinking this game is just 1 sided.
Just my last piece of advice I’d like to leave all my killers out there is unless your getting paid to play this game (content creators) why do you care if you lose? Sure it’s annoying to get teabagged / Bm’d but it’s not worth working up a stress over this game.
-
@AVoiceOfReason said:
Did every killer 2 games each. Iridescent 1. Lost 6 matches total (3k escapes), Tied 2 times, 3k'd 11 times and the rest was 4k's the rest of the time. Played as Iri 4 Survivor with my dude and barely won with escapes while having the most points just about every match. Always had a survivor who would screw up the game. Killer is far from hard. I did the killer challenge without tunneling, camping AND with only 1 gen regression perk. No stacking Ruin with Pop. The games were pretty easy. If you're losing then it's probably your skill added with camping and tunneling just to win. This game is really balanced but 1 bad Survivor can ruin a survivor's team from winning. 15 hours of killer streams total and 5 hours of Survivor to show the difference and BOTH Iri.
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656281#Comment_2656281
You literally said and I quote “Nerfed into irrelevance” which basically means into garbage tier.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/P0DM1X29G8N2/4eb8a1c8-23cf-483d-9db9-ae6d9738dcae.jpeg
-
No
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656198#Comment_2656198
They only nerfed his addons. I love it when a killer gets his addons touched a little everyone screams Dead KIlLer OmG HeS GaRBAge TiEr
-
It's made the game so so unfun.
-
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655716#Comment_2655716
It does matter if it is or isn't.
But I'm really not interested in participating in something so charged.
If people perceive it so, I'm not going to invalidate their feelings and experiences by waving a dictionary in their face.
I think we clearly disagree here. Happy to keep this civil and end it now.
Appreciate the debate.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655696#Comment_2655696
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's the principle of not removing something that isn't really causing issues for the vast majority of players AND because removing it isn't going to actually help them in any way.
It would just be removing it because "they" said to remove it. Plus, I don't even think it actually counts, considering the literal definition of blackface.
That's personally what makes me uncomfortable as an argument. "The majority think its fine, so who cares about the minority it upsets or offends". That's not a society or opinion that sits well with me, especially when its over a video game cosmetic (and not something more serious).
And if it is upsetting to anyone I fully understand the context of why. Therefore if it was removed it would absolutely help, in that it would stop those feelings and show a bit of sensitivity.
I'm not getting into the debate of what is and isn't technically blackface, because that's irrelevant if it causes (understandably), the same level of upset.
Not having a go, don't misunderstand. Just my opinion.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655681#Comment_2655681
If I weren't afraid of my own race being drawn into it, I'd say that people fight against it based on the principle.
Thats what I think I don't understand. People asking for it to be removed it seems are doing so to avoid being hurt and reminded of pretty distasteful part of history (and present), and even perhaps their own experiencesof discrimination. I am not having a go at those wanting it to stay. I'm saying I don't understand what principle would override that, given we are taking about a video game cosmetic
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655631#Comment_2655631
I see, I'll try my best to not shoot the messenger then.
I simply do not see the point if removing it does nothing to actually prevent people from targeting POC. Perhaps I'm being too logical and am not considering the emotional aspect of it.
This is the whole crux of the debate to me.
It's not about stopping people being racist (and definitely not about accusing people who use it of being), because it's removal won't do that.
It is about whether the understandable emotional hurt it can cause, and seems to have caused, because of the historical context of blackface (yes I know Bubba isn't racist blah blah) and the insensitivity of it, warrants it's removal. I'm starting to lean that way, as I'm struggling to understand why anyone would fight so passionately against removing, given what has been outlined.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655569#Comment_2655569
When I say you or yourselves, I’m essentially referring to every relevant person reading, not necessarily you specifically. My apologies.
I have considered that with great depth and my conclusion is still the same. It’s just a cosmetic face. Bubba wears faces. Removing the only black face just because it could offend someone can be seen as racist itself and the prospect has already caused offence to several minorities in this thread. Bubba doesn’t care about ethnicity, he just wants to be pretty.
I do fully understand and appreciate the issue though, whether or not it looks that way, but I’m taking more of a tough love stance than anything else.
I know for a fact that although it may appease a small number of people, removing the cosmetic is not the answer. Those feeling offended will continue to feel offended, and they will look for the next thing to remove or censor, so on, without ever learning to deal with this stuff properly. And that’s a big deal because no matter how much anyone tries, racists will continue to exist and people will always be on the receiving end. To be truly free of this, one must work on themselves. Once they finally start dealing with this nastiness in a healthier way, they’ll realise they have all the power, and were simply giving it away.
That being said I’m perfectly fine with the textures being fixed or each face being updated to more clearly represent each survivor.
Good debate. Thanks for engaging. The below isn't directed at you. Just my conclusion based on general observations on this thread.
I do find it interesting that on both sides, the larger volume of "anger" seems to come from the side of those wanting it to stay. I am forced to conclude that if we were debating the removal of any other cosmetic, there would be nowhere near this level of pushback, anger or stubbornness.
Disappointment from some sure, But I can't help but feel the level of anger from those wanting it to stay is rather disproportionate to the impact of it being removed. Which concerns me.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655589#Comment_2655589
Sure!
Smartface means a lot to me: Claudette is my second favorite Survivor and I mained her for a very long time. This mask was the first that I unlocked, way before Bubba's rework, which is one of my most despised changes btw. Since I bought Leatherface on my second day of playing, this cosmetic is also a reminder of better days in the Fog (around the time I unlocked it).
No, I don't understand why people want it removed. What I do understand and actively support is banning racist players who use it for harassment. These people are nothing but scum that don't deserve to play that game. But removing a cosmetic because of horrible human beings? Never.
Thanks for replying.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655562#Comment_2655562
Ah, I don't mind sharing mine.
I love the cosmetic and I don't want to see it removed.
My opinion alone is not enough to change anything, but it seems to be the absolute majority here, so maybe there is a chance.
Can I ask you a question mate? And in no way is this anything other than a genuine question. I'm still undecided as to whether it should be removed (but starting to lean one way).
What do you like about it and do you appreciate and understand why people want it removed? Or do you think people are just overreacting on others behalf (or in fact believe ig more people want it to stay than don't it should stay regardless if the reaons)?
Feel free to tell me to go do one, but I'm just curious. No hidden agenda promise.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655504#Comment_2655504
But don’t you see, you’re the ones making it about that stuff. You’re doing it to yourselves. To everyone else it’s just a face like all the others. That doesn’t change just because some douche comes along and uses it to troll.
The stuff you mentioned is horrible, but every race on the planet has been through that in one form or another.
You all need to stop obsessing over this stuff because you’re just hurting yourselves. I do care and honestly, the only way you’re ever going to cope with this stuff is to change how you deal with it, how you respond to it, how you see it. You can’t keep putting bandaids on everything. The underlying issues will remain and if you don’t change from within, they will never stop affecting you.
Please stop saying "you" and "yourselves".
I have said already on this thread I entered this debate undecided on whether the cosmetic needs to stay or be removed. So please try not to be make assumptions.
All I'm saying is that for the people who want it to stay, have you really considered the "benefit" of it staying, versus the obvious hurt it is causing, and does it really upset you if it is removed (and why). For those who want it removed, please don't assume everyone using it is doing so for racist reasons.
I think you have to have that debate, and not trivialise this. I am seeing a worrying lack of one side trying to understand the others specific issue, and if I may say so (and no offence because you seem to articulate yourself well), your posts seem to be an example of that (e.g. "every race on the planet" comment and such).
If people refuse to even try to understand why this is an issue for people there will be no change from within, as you say you want.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655423#Comment_2655423
You can disagree but that doesn’t really discount what I’m saying.
The number of people negatively impacted by the cosmetic are minuscule compared to the number of people using it, therefore the number of people negatively impacted by the removal/change would be larger.
No, I don’t believe the small number of people feeling offended are more valid or have more valid reasons.
Why? Well firstly you can’t dictate to someone what should or shouldn’t be important to them. Plenty of people use that cosmetic. Plenty of them would be upset at it being changed or removed, and nobody is in a position to talk down to them or to tell them their experience or concerns don’t matter, or to imply they are racist as you just did. This is a computer game and it has cosmetics. People like to use them. It is not racist to like a cosmetic. No matter how much you try to race bait, you won’t change this simple reality.
Secondly, just because a minority is offended by something, it doesn’t mean they’re more important than anyone else, regardless of their past experiences.
Sure, it sucks if you’ve had to deal with racism IRL and then you log into a video game and have to deal with it again, I do sympathise with that, however we are talking about a niche situation involving a specific cosmetic that has affected and does affect a genuinely minuscule number of people, and the proposed solution is at the expense of everyone else, not to mention that changing/removing the cosmetic in the first place doesn’t even stop the racists from being racist and therefore offending the people being offended.
Thirdly, forget about offending everyone else because they supposedly don’t matter, but what about offending other minorities? In this thread alone there are many minorities offended by the very suggestion. They feel as though they are being babied, coddled, gaslighted, etc. They feel as though they shouldn’t be treated differently for their ethnicity, and that they’re capable of dealing with trolls in an online video game because they see themselves as grown adults with self respect.
Why do these minorities not matter? Are you being racist for discounting their feelings?
So when it comes down to it, we have a minuscule number of people, offended by a cosmetic in a computer game, removing/changing features at the expense of the vast majority, including many other minorities.
And for what? So that once in a blue moon, in an almost non-existent situation, some random person won’t feel bad over a cosmetic, but will still feel bad when they read racist messages from the person who would have worn the cosmetic.
I just don’t see it.
For all those people who use the cosmetic. If you are more upset by its removal from as you said "a video game", and you care more about using it than stopping the reinforcement of generations of hurt associated with racial stereotypes and injustice..... I would respectfully suggest that person re evaluate.
And if you think that last part of the paragraph above is "over the top" then that is the exact reason we still need this kind of debate.
There are so many examples in history, of the majority over the minority (imagine telling the native Americans that the slaughter of the population and annexing of their land was fine because "If we didn't it was at the expense of the vast majority". Again, maybe an over the top comparison, but the point is that the majority over the minority argument is kind of sickening.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655439#Comment_2655439
It just read as you telling me specifically that I was denying the history of blackface, when I’m from a country with an annual event during which the discussion arises. Just rubbed me wrong, is all.
Also, I have no idea what the “royal you” is, so I’m just gonna google that real quick to not derail the topic further.
That was not my intention. Apologies.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655432#Comment_2655432
I literally stated “coddling” was the term used by someone else, who iirc, is a poc. If it wasn’t from who I think it was, then that’s on me.
I am in no way denying the history, or the problems with it. You clearly didn’t read the entire thread. I’m just mentioning the others as the cosmetic itself isn’t the only factor I’m considering here.
Please don't resort to micro aggressions, or get defensive. When I said "you", I meant the royal you. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655423#Comment_2655423
It’s just that if the offending cosmetic gets removed, all the others face cosmetics should get removed too. Otherwise, it just creates an unnecessary stand-out that makes it seem like “coddling” as someone else in this thread put it.
I think you trivialise the debate and the historical issue of "blackface" by calling it "coddling". Or at least you fail to understand why this cosmetic may genuinely upset people.
Yes, I get that Bubba wears the faces of all victims, and I am not sure I have a strong opinion one way or the other on this specific cosmetic. But I do think we need to listen to the objections without using "whattaboutery". And I definitely see this thread and debate, as a sad microcosm of the wider societal debate.
We do need to be careful though, in how we perceive those in the game who do wear it, and make unwarranted accusations there either.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655398#Comment_2655398
That’s your definition. To everyone else it’s just a cosmetic of a character’s face, like all the other ones, because that’s literally all it is. You’re making it into something racist which could be construed as racism in of itself.
See how that works? What do we do about the minorities being offended by you being offended?
Now, obviously I’m not saying you’re being explicitly racist, but singling out minorities and treating them like children, or implying they can’t handle adult themes, or gaslighting them into thinking everyone is racist, can definitely be perceived as racism, and that’s what this is all about when it comes down to it. Perceptions. Perspectives. How do we weight them all? We can’t. You just can’t please everyone.
The fact of the matter is, removing or changing the cosmetic to appease such a small group of people in such a niche situation, is going to negatively impact far more people in the process.
And I do see many people asking for it to be removed whenever this topic is brought up, but asking for it to be changed to “be less offensive” is pretty much the same thing at the end of the day.
What else are we going to change to be less offensive? We should remove camping because a racist person could camp someone. Same for tunnelling. But what about hooking in general? We can’t have racists hooking people. Especially minorities. That would be offensive. Same for slugging. As for chasing, well that’s some pretty dodgy territory, having a known murderer chasing around minorities? Beyond the pale. At this stage we may as well delete the whole game, but then we’d be deleting Claudette, which could be racist too.
In a bit of a pickle here.
Totally disagree with your comme t that removing it will upset more people than it will satisfy.
Or more accurately this is the problem with this whole debate and issue at large.
If people get genuinely offended or upset, for well known historical and personal reasons... isn't that more valid a reason to listen to, than people who really shouldn't have an issue with the sinple removal of a cosmetic. Simply put, the removal of a cosmetic doesn't really impact you or matter, so if they did, and you kick up a fuss.... ask yourself why
-
Regardless of your opinion on the cosmetic, it is very dangerous to assume *everyone* using it, who camps any given survivor has racist motivations. That accusation directed to those risks undermining the whole debate.
-
@TheArbiter said:
Noed doesnt need a nerf, solo q needs a buff to be on par with the information you get from swf.
Because exactly what this game needs is more survivor buffs. Yes, more survivor buffs. Keep em coming devs. Whoop whoop.
-
@jinx3d said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653066#Comment_2653066
if they do this theyll give it a timer / token system
Unfortunately you're probably right.
-
Dem Bones Dem Bones
-
@BabuDweet said:
pffftttt imagine if I was being serious lmao 😂
no but serious, how does everyone feel about the balancing issues lately in specific?
Game is 75% 25% in survivors favour. Fact
-
@beatddb said:
There's just not enough time to control gens, chase, patrol, break pallets, hook survivors, and now look for totems.
2 people on a gen can repair it in around 40 seconds (even LESS if at least one of then has a tool box). 40 seconds isn't even enough time for lower tier killers to chase, down and hook a survivor, let alone having to drop chase if someone is on a gen, which would just restart the cycle as someone else can inmediatly hop in while you're busy.
Can someone explain to me how is this even fair? Devs know there are 5 gens and not 10 right? Weaker killers can't even afford to actually use a build they like because if you don't run at least one gen regression perk you won't last more than 4 minutes.
This is visible easier with tinkerer, i cant recall how many times i start a chase with a survivor 15 seconds into a match only to have 2-3 tinkerer procs by the time i down the survivor.
All this does is put unnecesary pressure on a killer while also promoting tunneling and proxy camping. Because right now the only way to secure a non-sweaty match is to get someone off the game as quickly as possible (and then you see on these forums a lot of survivors claiming tunneling and camping is more common, wonder why that is)
I understand that devs dont touch anything related to generators to not bother survivors, but also by not doing so you're indirectly afecting survivor players too. Queue times are already annoying (i have an swf and it takes us around 10 to 15 minutes to find a match on rush hours).
Also i know this doesn't happen every match, sometimes the killer spawns with a nasty 3-gen and takes advantage of it, or some times your teammates just simply don't do gens. But at higher mmr you're forced to have a quick match because gens just fly and you dont have much control over it.
It makes me really sad because some times i want to use a fun build, like full oblivious, anti healing or whatever. But now you can't even hit n' run for pressure because with boon totems, in 20 seconds the whole theam has reset and back to healthy.
I'm not blaming survivor players though, I know this is an issue with the mechanics of the game and not the players, but considering this has been a recurrent issue since the game came out, one would think that in 5 years they would have done something about it... Guess i was wrong.
Agreed
-
@jesterkind said:
There actually is a very fair nerf to NOED that I think the perk really does need- I've said it elsewhere, but the only problem with NOED is that the first person hit by it doesn't really have any chance to employ the perk's counterplay. Sure, they could've done bones to prevent it activating, but you don't need to do that; once you know it's active, if you aren't the guy hit by it, you have two very strong options: find and break the hex, or leave the trial.
My solution is to make it so it doesn't require one guy get ######### over, by making it announce itself when the last generator is complete. There, everyone has the opportunity to employ counterplay unless the killer's right on them when it procs.
Since survivors can BOTH prevent it from ever activating and cleanse it after it does proc, and the effect simply isn't strong enough to save bad gameplay, the fundamental design of the perk is fine.
While I cannot agree that NOED should be nerfed in any way, due to the current state of the game....This is the most sensible suggestion I've seen, and by no means over the top.
-
@Terramortius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653079#Comment_2653079
Noed is a perk that rewards killers massively for ignoring gens. It isn't fair in every way BUT killers, especially in my server where everyone is annoying and toxic, have to deal with 4DS 4DH 4 UNBREAKABLES, IRONWILL BT SPINECHILL ETC. very often. It's 4 perks and a kit vs 16 perks plus 4 items.
So honestly, yes, NOED's effect is unfair, but until the killers' life gets slightly easier, NOED should stay the same.
I disagree that it rewards killers for ignoring gens, but it is of course a big advantage "while it is active".
Of course it is easy enough to both prevent activation and stop it once it's up. Coupled with your excellent points about what killers have to put up with... mean I have to conclude it is fair in so much it is needed.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653231#Comment_2653231
That is not why I ended it.
I'll clarify. You seem to have ended it because you think I'm being facicous. I assure you I wasn't.
Happy to take the buff question out the equation and just discuss "does it need a nerf". I still see no evidence that it does.
If you still do not wish to continue I respect that.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653208#Comment_2653208
So, you think old Object of Obsession was a fair perk? Because we know the Kill Rates for people who used OoO were through the roof.
Likewise, Pig's Kill Rate is very high. Should we nerf Pig into the ground because she has a 60% Kill Rate?
No, of course not. Because there is nuance.
I do not believe you are intending to discuss this in good faith, mostly because of your "buff" idea. So I'm done speaking to someone who isn't going to take anything seriously.
Have a good one.
Agreed we should end the debate. Anyone who uses the "whataboutery" argument has already lost.
It is irrelevant what I think about Pig and OOO (be happy to talk about those separately) My opinion on NOED (the source of the discussion) remains, based on my experiences, and stats provided, are it is fine.
The reason for my buff idea was a counter to how survivor sided the game is atm.
I enjoyed that debate. Sorry you feel the need to end it because we disagree.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653151#Comment_2653151
It is.
My stats do support that. Out of 24 games, how many times did we cleanse all 5 totems?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653151#Comment_2653151
How would you buff it?
No Hex required.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653127#Comment_2653127
Oh, no. I'm ######### that's not up for debate.
Look at how many totems were cleansed on average, please. That was what the experiment was about.
I was curious to see how many totems usually got cleansed. MMR is so inconsistent I wouldn't rely on Kill Rates.
But your point was NOED is unfair. Unfortunately your stats don't support that. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. Just that I don't consider myself a great survivor and even I don't suffer from NOED too much.
I think actually it shows it would benefit from a buff.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653122#Comment_2653122
It means activated, my apologies.
There was one game where NOED activated, but it was cleansed immediately because someone was cleansing the Dull as it changed into a Hex.
So only 10/25 games resulted in 3 or 4k. Seems fair to me
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653113#Comment_2653113
I didn't actually.
They are pretty unbiased and are a representation of 24 Solo Games. I miscounted and I thought my 24th was my 25th :(
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/01J1SFLN0N0H/noed-png.png
Out of curiosity what does the "proc" stand for?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653090#Comment_2653090
Oh, I do. And I actually took down some stats for around 24 games. Want to see?
Your carefully selected stats from your small sample of carefully selected games. Sure, why not.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653088#Comment_2653088
So just to get this into perspective. Its a unbearable task for a solo survivor to cleanse 4/5 totems, but cleansing 5+ boons is totally fine for killers?
Please don´t pretend like the solo survivor HAS to do everything. Because there are 3 more, that can also do bones.
Exactly. Solo survivor is so easy. You shouldn't even get hit once in endgame anyway.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653083#Comment_2653083
Oh? Is it?
Cleansing 4/5 totems and still being hit by one of the strongest effects in the game is fair?
Honestly, if you say yes. I have zero interest in continuing this conversation with someone that irrational.
Do Bones
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653083#Comment_2653083
Oh? Is it?
Cleansing 4/5 totems and still being hit by one of the strongest effects in the game is fair?
Honestly, if you say yes. I have zero interest in continuing this conversation with someone that irrational.
Yes.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653057#Comment_2653057
You can't honestly tell me that NOED is fair for Solo's
Of course it is fair.
-
I feel your title is misleading, given your commentary (which I agree with).
-
NOED shouldn't be a Hex Perk. That way it might finally move the game slightly away from it's survivor bias.