DerpyPlayz
DerpyPlayz
About
- Username
- DerpyPlayz
- Joined
- Visits
- 325
- Last Active
Comments
-
@CashelP14 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2283395#Comment_2283395
When I say "when you compare him to other killers" I didn't mean you specifically, I meant it in a different way. It's hard to explain.
I've read a few of the comments but definitely not them all. Since you've seen most comments you can tell me which ones I need to refute if I miss them here.
I know he needs to hit survivors 3 times and they get a sprint burst and the zombies are really, really blind sometimes but he's still better than people are saying. Here's my reasons.
- The fact that once he gets someone infected he can hit over loops with a really quick charge up is very strong.
- When you are one side of a pallet (just after dropping it) there is no other killer that can either break the pallet or injure a survivor in 1 attack except for lopro chains on Billy. This alone makes every pallet drop very risky for a survivor. At a dropped pallet missing an attack doesn't hurt you in terms of pressure.
- Zombies gives free detection. Not the best but not the worst either.
- Even though the zombies are quite dumb and need a buff they can still change a game out of nowhere.
- Coughing survivors can help in loops with walls.
- My opinion for this but compared to most killers getting the first down is a lot easier on Nemesis.
He's like most killers. Bad early game but strong endgame. I think once you've gotten better with his power and you get good perks then you'll do good against most teams. I didn't have any good perks for most of my games and I did fine. Only had some good perks for my last few games.
When I say "when you compare him to other killers" I didn't mean you specifically, I meant it in a different way. It's hard to explain.Oh you meant it rhetorically, I understand what you mean now.
I've read a few of the comments but definitely not them all. Since you've seen most comments you can tell me which ones I need to refute if I miss them here.Its not my job to fact check for you nor offer other people's arguments for you. That is your job.
I know he needs to hit survivors 3 times and they get a sprint burst and the zombies are really, really blind sometimes but he's still better than people are saying. Here's my reasons.Define "Better then than people are saying".
Some people are saying he is op, others are saying he is F tier.
The fact that once he gets someone infected he can hit over loops with a really quick charge up is very strong.Not if you are playing competently, this is only effective in specific angles and it has its own mindgame potential. Safe loops are still safe, so you are getting god looped just like normal.
When you are one side of a pallet (just after dropping it) there is no other killer that can either break the pallet or injure a survivor in 1 attack except for lopro chains on Billy. This alone makes every pallet drop very risky for a survivor. At a dropped pallet missing an attack doesn't hurt you in terms of pressure.This is a lie, Bubba does just that except he downs the survivor instead. Bubba has the same mindgame issue at pallets Nemi does. So this MAY make it risky, it depends. If anything it is more effective vs the killer however because the survivors can make mistakes and the killer can't.
Zombies gives free detection. Not the best but not the worst either.Which is useless if he can't do anything with it
Even though the zombies are quite dumb and need a buff they can still change a game out of nowhere.They can, but its rare in my games at least.
Coughing survivors can help in loops with walls.Incredibly minimally, it is a advantage that is near nullified with how insignificant it is.
My opinion for this but compared to most killers getting the first down is a lot easier on Nemesis.Then you are objectively wrong. Nurse, Spirit, ect do this faster and better.
He's like most killers. Bad early game but strong endgame.He is like most killers, however end game does not cut it for a efficient killer. They need to be effective the entire trials or they are not getting they're hooks vs a good team of survs.
I think once you've gotten better with his power and you get good perks then you'll do good against most teams.I do good, I constantly 4k. This isn't because the Nemi is good though its because the survs don't know what they are doing. Every time I find those teams that do know what to do, it really shows how useless he is in alot of situations and its hard to even draw the game. It doesn't help the zombies can act as free sprint bursts at all, indirectly buffing survs.
I didn't have any good perks for most of my games and I did fine. Only had some good perks for my last few games.Then you certainly are not playing a team of survivors that are very good.
-
@CashelP14 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2282893#Comment_2282893
I have seen the points but just in my opinion he isn't anywhere near bottom 5. I've played him a lot and had great success.
Just when you compare him to other killer I don't understand it lol
You haven't refuted zed points by reading them, nor stating you have had success with him.
I haven't compared him to any killer personally.
-
@CashelP14 said:
I don't get all these "he's bottom tier" comments. He has a few flaws like the zombies being in my opinion slower and less responsive than ptb but overall he's really good.
I've played 12 games as him now. Had haddonfield, ormond, mothers dwelling etc and I've 4k'd every game except my first (Temple of Purgation while going for adept, still got 1K with 8 hooks).
Now I know I haven't faced a god tier swf yet but I haven't had a game vs 4 potatoes either. I've probably had a good mix each game but all of high ranks. I think after some quality of life changes he'll be in a great place.
I don't get all these "he's bottom tier" comments. He has a few flaws like the zombies being in my opinion slower and less responsive than ptb but overall he's really good.Then clearly you haven't read any of the points of contention that people in this thread have brought up that are valid.
@[Deleted User] said:
I think people are just frustrated because he had potential to be a solid high B killer but somehow they added too many unnecessary things to his kit. You can't say Nemesis needing 3 hits to down someone is okay when Nurse, Spirit, Blight, Huntress, Deathslinger, etc only need 2. Bubba and Demo eat through pallets as fast as Nemesis and they don't need any kind of "set up".
Besides that, he has literally 0 interesting addons and somehow they killed the zombie AI from how it was on PTB. He's definitely not among the worst, as there are like 7 or 8 killers which are weaker than him, but he's super plain and dull.
Compare him to PH for example. Triangle boi came with a new hook mechanic, which is a hard counter to a lot of survivors meta perks, and the first attack that goes through walls (if you don't consider Nurse). Meanwhile Nemesis is just another killer with a short antiloop and zombies which are more an annoyance for both sides than actually a threat.
@DerpyPlayz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281152#Comment_2281152
I actually agree with you, I think for now we should let it sit, I don't think Nem actually needs any buffs.Hm, I don't know about buffs either.
I think however Zombie AI needs fixing, and if a zombie hits someone that it doesn't give a sprint burst, at the very least they should consider giving the nemesis some of his power for zombie hits because rn the meta for vsing him is letting zombies hit you for either a sprint burst during chase, or/and to nullify his T2/3 from being obtained.
Right now there is almost zero counterplay to him outside of using that additional infection hit to hold W and waste as much time as possible, he can play most loops and its very hard to dodge the projectile if the killer doesn't panic.The counter play with him is the same as most other killers, albeit with more precise movement needed. Safe loops are still safe, although dangerous loops are insanely dangerous with him so he can get cheeky hits there. Certain god windows he can play around, other ones he is completely countered by. Just depends really, but there is counterplay.
Low walls are an immediate win for him, much like Trickster, but unlike Trickster he can ready his power extremely quickly for hits at pallet drops and can even chew through pallets once at Level 2.Not really, you can't really hit through walls it seems and this seems to apply to low walls. Least I haven't been able to hit anyone through low walls, although if the survivors just pay attention to you they don't really have to give you the choice to either.
Nemesis... isn't very fun to play against.Thats subjective, I don't mind playing vs him and my friend likes it.
Really fun to play as but there's no real counterplay as survivor. If they remove the speed boost on infection hit his kill rate will skyrocket and he'll probably get nerfed anyway.
I've played 12 games as him now. Had haddonfield, ormond, mothers dwelling etc and I've 4k'd every game except my first (Temple of Purgation while going for adept, still got 1K with 8 hooks).Ok? This doesn't mean anything.
Now I know I haven't faced a god tier swf yet but I haven't had a game vs 4 potatoes either. I've probably had a good mix each game but all of high ranks. I think after some quality of life changes he'll be in a great place.Most games you play you won't find very optimized survivors, nor even decent survivors because how they base the game.
Again, rank doesn't matter and its only used for match making. At a red rank you are liable to find the worse players in the game who accidently/purposely where boosted by the rank system, or god survivors who should fit the idea of what it should be like to be in the highest rank in game.
-
@notlonely said:
I have multiple times, and do.
You literally wouldn't have stated Killer is weaker than SoloQ if you've ever played SoloQ end of discussion.
I didn't see this till now.
In that case, you are a murder because I feel like it. End of discussion.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2270045#Comment_2270045
Why? You made several statements without explaining why? If a killer has ######### connection or is Vpning for a ######### connection it'll show me. How is that a straw man? Need a dictionary?
No, because instead of replying to what he said, or acknowledging it, his argument was warped and ignored.
-
@PeaceNGrease said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281215#Comment_2281215
When did they "Kill nurse" What are you talking about? The nerf that didn't let everyone get easy wins with her?
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. When the changed her to make her more balanced, alot of the people who played her stopped playing her.
Albeit if they changed Nemi with the before idea, it would likely make him either unplayable to insanely hard to use. So he wouldn't be viable really, the comparison of him and the nurse wasn't about balance though, it was mostly about play rate to clarify in specific about what I said.
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281169#Comment_2281169
There was plenty of posts during the PTB about how Nemesis felt good to play, and asking survivors not to have him be nerfed.
Sure, no way was that the majority though. It was a mix, some people thought he was ok and some didn't.
I found more of the experienced players I know/met said that they thought he was weaker then what they would of thought. Some thought that he was fine. A few even were disappointed by his ability rather then talking about how effective it was.
The line was crossed both ways, I just don't like how OP is framing it as most thought X, when that was not true. Most of the player base is completely cut off from the PTB as console doesn't even have it. The PC player who do, most of them don't play it. At least the ones I have seen.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281194#Comment_2281194
I think you've lost all credibility, sir.
Couldn't care less what you think if its just assertion that doesn't add to conversation. He can't hit through walls. I have tried it before and it doesn't work.
-
@gibblywibblywoo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281187#Comment_2281187
You can definitely hit over most low wall objects in the entire game. Its just that the hit is inconsistent. It happened in the PTB too. Nemesis couldn't hit you over a trash can but could hit you over something that was as tall as him.
As of right now I honestly think he can ready the tentacle too fast. Even when I was pre dropping pallets on high walls the nemesis could easily ready it up and hit it at an awkward angle and land on me. I think that might be because of that weird lingering hitbox though.
I'm still unsure if its actually the tentacle or the blue line that deals damage.
I like the zombies thematically but I do dislike how they can essentially play the game for him. Maybe make them infect/injure only but not down.
You can definitely hit over most low wall objects in the entire game. Its just that the hit is inconsistent. It happened in the PTB too. Nemesis couldn't hit you over a trash can but could hit you over something that was as tall as him.Hm, well if its not consistent then its not completely a threat. So your point of it just instantly being winning doesn't hold?
As of right now I honestly think he can ready the tentacle too fast. Even when I was pre dropping pallets on high walls the nemesis could easily ready it up and hit it at an awkward angle and land on me. I think that might be because of that weird lingering hitbox though.I could not disagree more, if they change that they will kill this killer faster then they killed the nurse.
The ready up time is absolutely fine, and there are mindgames the survivior can do as counterplay if they predict Nemi is about to slap them with his tentacle.
I'm still unsure if its actually the tentacle or the blue line that deals damage.Its the blue line, I realize when I hit in front of where someone is going, even if I miss, if the come in contact with the blue fire then it will hit them still.
I sorta think of it as a lingering effect in the area for roughly 0.5 second(s).
I like the zombies thematically but I do dislike how they can essentially play the game for him. Maybe make them infect/injure only but not down.They can help out big time sometimes, but its rare. Most of the time they glitch in place, or get stuck on something.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281173#Comment_2281173
Nemesis hits through walls too.....
No he does not. I wish he did, that might actually make him really good though. Not sure that would be balanced though so its best he is left where he is in that degree.
-
@gibblywibblywoo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2280912#Comment_2280912
I actually agree with you, I think for now we should let it sit, I don't think Nem actually needs any buffs.
Right now there is almost zero counterplay to him outside of using that additional infection hit to hold W and waste as much time as possible, he can play most loops and its very hard to dodge the projectile if the killer doesn't panic.
Low walls are an immediate win for him, much like Trickster, but unlike Trickster he can ready his power extremely quickly for hits at pallet drops and can even chew through pallets once at Level 2.
I've played a straight day as survivor and now a straight day as killer and I'll say this.
Nemesis... isn't very fun to play against. Really fun to play as but there's no real counterplay as survivor. If they remove the speed boost on infection hit his kill rate will skyrocket and he'll probably get nerfed anyway.
I actually agree with you, I think for now we should let it sit, I don't think Nem actually needs any buffs.Hm, I don't know about buffs either.
I think however Zombie AI needs fixing, and if a zombie hits someone that it doesn't give a sprint burst, at the very least they should consider giving the nemesis some of his power for zombie hits because rn the meta for vsing him is letting zombies hit you for either a sprint burst during chase, or/and to nullify his T2/3 from being obtained.
Right now there is almost zero counterplay to him outside of using that additional infection hit to hold W and waste as much time as possible, he can play most loops and its very hard to dodge the projectile if the killer doesn't panic.The counter play with him is the same as most other killers, albeit with more precise movement needed. Safe loops are still safe, although dangerous loops are insanely dangerous with him so he can get cheeky hits there. Certain god windows he can play around, other ones he is completely countered by. Just depends really, but there is counterplay.
Low walls are an immediate win for him, much like Trickster, but unlike Trickster he can ready his power extremely quickly for hits at pallet drops and can even chew through pallets once at Level 2.Not really, you can't really hit through walls it seems and this seems to apply to low walls. Least I haven't been able to hit anyone through low walls, although if the survivors just pay attention to you they don't really have to give you the choice to either.
Nemesis... isn't very fun to play against.Thats subjective, I don't mind playing vs him and my friend likes it.
If they remove the speed boost on infection hit his kill rate will skyrocket and he'll probably get nerfed anyway.Seriously doubt that would be the case.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2281118#Comment_2281118
I already clarified, that's what I meant. If you don't go down the pallet gets broken and if you go down well then it didn't matter anyway, it's a lose/lose with the same tentacle strike. At least with Pyramid Head if he misses it won't take a pallet.
Well pyramid has the tradeoff of being able to hit through walls, so I don't think you want to die on that hill.
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
It’s funny how during the PTB, most killer mains on here talked about how good it was to have a new decently strong killer after Trickster. But as soon as he’s been released, a huge amount of people on here are saying he’s bottom tier, without even trying to take some time to learn how to play him.
It’s honestly hilarious to see the 180 that has happened on here. The speed boost he gives upon contamination is extremely minor, as he is very strong in a majority of the loops in the game. He has anti-loop, game slowdown with the vaccine (not a lot, but it also gives him info when a survivor collects a vaccine), zombies that slow down gens and bodyblock for him, etc. He has a lot going for him, and to think you can master him in a day is extremely entitled. His power is very strong, and he has downsides like a balanced killer should have.
Also, you only need to hit survivor’s three times a maximum of four times a game, as the vaccines are limited. He is a B tier killer, and one of the most balanced released in a long time.
It’s funny how during the PTB, most killer mains on here talked about how good it was to have a new decently strong killer after Trickster. But as soon as he’s been released, a huge amount of people on here are saying he’s bottom tier, without even trying to take some time to learn how to play him.It’s honestly hilarious to see the 180 that has happened on here.I don't know where you got this impression, I never heard anyone call him strong at that point nor in current day.
The speed boost he gives upon contamination is extremely minor, as he is very strong in a majority of the loops in the game.The speed boost is actually pretty major, I have used zombies keenly to make major distance by using them as free sprint bursts because being contaminated really isn't a threat. It is simply a gateway for his power to actually be effective on you.
He has anti-loop,On most loops, safe loops and good loops are still remarkably safe, at at least most of them. A good amount are hard for the survivors to play if you have Bamboozle, but still a good team of survivors will pose a problem.
game slowdown with the vaccine (not a lot, but it also gives him info when a survivor collects a vaccine),Not at all, there is no trade off for getting the vac. You spend 10 seconds tops getting the vaccine, but now you get for it the chance to use a zombie as a sprint burst if you want, or nullify the killers power allowing you to make one free mistake.
How is that slowing the game down if it helps you during chase, and gives you a extra life in these two situations??
zombies that slow down gens and bodyblock for him, etc.Assuming they're AI doesn't bug and they start walking/running in place at the invisible seems on the map which happens quite often. Or get stuck on random objects for no logical reason.
I don't think when they body block windows thats intended, I think they're AI just bugs out and they get stuck on them at times.
He has a lot going for him, and to think you can master him in a day is extremely entitled. His power is very strong, and he has downsides like a balanced killer should have.This is just a assertion, so nothing to comment on here other then give valid reasons for why you think this so I can give counter reasons, agreements and/or a verdict on why I think you are right or wrong.
As it stands though, I have yet to see someone say that you should be able to master anyone in a day.
Also, you only need to hit survivor’s three times a maximum of four times a game, as the vaccines are limited.Exactly, with each chase by a competent survivors lasting a good amount of time.
He is a B tier killer, and one of the most balanced released in a long time.Another assertion, I disagree with this. I think he is C, he has a base kit that is ok but it is not enough to pressure survivors to outrageous degree if they play the game properly with how it is.
He is another killer where if you gen rush, and can loop for the average time then he will lose.
-
@gendoss said:
Yes he's the only killer in the game who can destroy a pallet and injure you in 1 hit (except for Lopro Chain Billy). He always can force you into a position where you either drop the pallet and get hit along with the pallet being destroyed, or you don't drop the pallet at all and just die anyway.
His tentacle has no warning unlike PH's shockwave ability and has a lingering hitbox. He definitely has the potential to be the best looper in the game outside of Spirit and Nurse.
Yes he's the only killer in the game who can destroy a pallet and injure you in 1 hit (except for Lopro Chain Billy).No he can't, if hit then it doesn't destroy pallet .
-
@Gwinty said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2259116#Comment_2259116
They can be, do not get me wrong please.
Something can be balanced and it can be fun. However fun is subjective. For some people balance is fun and others have fun with wonky things. As an example: The most fun with LoL for me was URF. URF is not very balanced but it is tons of fun for me. The normal game was more balanced but less fun for me.
As such depending on how you do it you can kill fun for the sake of balance and the other way around. The question is how to finde that balance. For a symetric game like LoL it is easier that for an asymetric game like DbD. MMR is a thing that requires much work to empathise both aspects. And I merely wanted to point that out.
. However fun is subjective.Yes it is, we however ignore typically those opinions who think that less balance is fun because they directly conflict with the majority playerbase and promote illness in games.
IE: Pay to win mechanics, ect
This is like saying here "Well murder being bad is subjective", sure it is, but just because that is the case doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that it is wrong to murder.
This is why we include goals, so then we can set objectivity in place.
My goals would be very simple in this regard, how can we promote a environment in which both party's have fun, and can compete with each other fairly while also appeasing the most amount of player(s).
Of course I can make that more specific, but this is all I really need in place to then come to the objective idea that balance is better then not having as much or no balance at all.
For some people balance is fun and others have fun with wonky things. As an example: The most fun with LoL for me was URF. URF is not very balanced but it is tons of fun for me. The normal game was more balanced but less fun for me.Yes, someone absolutely has a blast cheating with aimbots in games, however the victims of that encounter do not. This is what leads to the second issue with lack of balance in a game, another environment where this is a issue, upsetting the player base. It can outright kill games when imbalance is prevalent to horrid degrees and makes players not want to play the game in question.
The question is how to finde that balance. For a symetric game like LoL it is easier that for an asymetric game like DbD. MMR is a thing that requires much work to empathise both aspects. And I merely wanted to point that out.As said before, we do not want imbalance in games if we are to come to the goal "how can we promote a environment in which both party's have fun, and can compete with each other fairly while also appeasing the most amount of player(s).".
Any unbalance in a game would be objectively bad, if we are to agree this is what we want as the goal.
We are humans however so to balance any game perfectly is impossible and would break logic as we know it if we could do it based on how insane of a feat that would be. So instead we look to what is acceptable for balance in a game, no doubt about it 4v1 is difficult to balance on a acceptable level, but it can be done.
So I don't understand what the point is of pointing things out seemingly for no reason.
-
@TheMadCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2258446#Comment_2258446
How exactly saying nothing is feedback? Not everything is good feedback, I agree, but if you read people, you see it seems to work for some and not to work for others.
It's already something we can take into consideration, when people said something like: "Trapper is my main and I'm matched againt new players while I never play Nurse but I'm against pretty good Survivors." It could be: OK, it seems there is a flaw right there, let's see it.
You see what I mean?
How exactly saying nothing is feedback?Its not, stop implying I have said that when I have not.
Not everything is good feedback, I agree, but if you read people, you see it seems to work for some and not to work for others.Cool?
It's already something we can take into consideration, when people said something like: "Trapper is my main and I'm matched againt new players while I never play Nurse but I'm against pretty good Survivors." It could be: OK, it seems there is a flaw right there, let's see it.? Ok?
No one knows how it is implemented, I don't understand why people are assuming that past experience is took into account.
I also haven't said that the new MMR system is good or bad, I don't have enough information to make the decision considering its in test as said before.
You see what I mean?If you mean me thinking less of you, then yes I completely understand. If the goal wasn't that, then no I don't understand what you hoped to accomplish by saying this and I don't even understand the point you are trying to make.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
You just can’t beat coordinated SWF on this map with most of the killers. They’re too aggressive taking control of the centre. Once they’ve managed to achieve that and subdivide the map, it’s game over. This map always infuriates me.
You can't beat a cordinated team on any map unless you are great at nurse/spirit.
-
@TheMadCat said:
Just saying: feedback is something great to give. Not only data you get from the game is good to know, even if people complain, it's still feedback.
First test was amazing for me, this one is meh. I tell it, and I will keep telling it, because no one can guess how the community takes the new test if no one says how they feel about it.
For me, at least, it's only giving feedback, to help if there is something to improve.
How exactly is someone saying "TERRIBLE SYSTEM JUST GO BACK AND STOP TRYING TO ADD MMR" good feedback? That is what is mostly echoed and its stupid advice.
-
@SilentPill said:
And here is the result LOL. I play this killer almost every day.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/KPOKE2C4B4BK/b10bd1d0-9267-4c1b-9ee0-17576f91aa39.png
Meanwhile keyswapping at 6 seconds happens to me almost every week I want to say.
Scrap this garbage system and make it harder for survivors to pip up.
If the original game wasn’t so good these devs would murder their own product through being incompetent.
I am 99% sure it starts you at base mmr and doesn't take into account past experience,
IE: Everyone starts at lets say 100 MMR, and if you win you go up, and lose you go down.
I am pretty sure it is working, I really wish the devs would just be more open with what is being calculated for matchmaking though.
-
@Northener1907 said:
I played 5 games today as Freddy. First 2 matches was so sweaty because i faced with SWF groups and only 1 kill i got. They were so good.
And then 3 games i faced with low ranks. On this 3 matches, 8 was highest rank.
I closed game because 0 fun. I hope that is only beta because if mmr will come like that, i do not think i will play anymore. 0 fun i had today.
So far it hasn't been to bad.
I am playing vs survivors that aren't amazing, but aren't terrible, very cocky though.
It seems better then old matchmaking.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2258262#Comment_2258262
You're arguing this so hard I honestly just don't believe you, I more believe you vpn for an advantage and don't want your opponents to be able to tell in the lobby. Why would anyone be against players knowing the ping of their opponents? Because they abuse the lack of such a system is the only logical answer.
Well yhea, thats confirmation bias for you.
Or because the more common ones(s):
A.) They don't want the devs focusing on things that aren't a issue, like they do with a bunch of different things and don't want to add to that list
Least that is the reason I don't want them focusing on it. As far as I am concerned, you are just talking about of your butt trying hoping that something sticks. Why else would you make assertions and implications for me after I already said its not true?
DodgingBear brought up his own points too, and you basically ignored them. There are different reasons for why someone thinks something, and its illogical to pretend you understand someone and assert someones stance on something which is the ironic part.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2257976#Comment_2257976
Yeah it has a great effect on the killer, it makes it so that ha appears to be 5 meters from where he is to the survivors. I seriously can't believe this is news to you. Overhype my ass.
Idk what you are on but I was lagging yesterday and it was not easier at all. It was significantly harder actually because the surviviors would teleport and I would teleport back.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2256460#Comment_2256460
No I think you aren't paying attention or are being purposefully obtuse. It is a simple fix. Show me pings. If you vpn, your Ping will be #########, this is vital info for everyone about to enter a 10+ minute game to know. If you alt tab, that's a very momentary lag spike. If it increases the wait times for me so be it. If it increases the wait time for killers with bad pings, even better. Stronger dedicated servers? What does that even mean? If you mean that it punishes laggy killers, I'm all for it. If you want the server to somehow determine a VPN killer and make it work, its impossible. I don't know what you mean by incentives for killers to play. You seem to think I'm complaining about lobby wait times. I'm complaining about bullshit hits because of laggy killers.
@Dodgingbears said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2256423#Comment_2256423
You seem to not have read the post very well.
Dodgingbear is completely right, you don't read well. You aren't even replying to him.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2255302#Comment_2255302
It means that even though the killer has a way worse ping than everyone else, bhvr has made it so that whatever the killer sees is basically what happens, which is why you have bs hits, because survivors with a normal ping see something totally different than a bad ping killer. Many pathetic killer players exploit this situation with a VPN, you can google what a VPN is, and some just have a really bad connection, and survivors are punished for it. How difficult is this to understand?
If the killer is lagging badly enough for that to be the case, would that not affect the killer as well? I am starting to think you are just over hyping this.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2253989#Comment_2253989
Because like I said the game HEAVILY PRIORITEZES WHAT THE KILLER SEES. Who are you that this is news to you?
What does that even mean?
-
@notlonely said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2249313#Comment_2249313
Also you haven't replied to any of my points I made previously, yet called me new. That is genuinely intriguing and I just notice it.
Sorry I literally log in twice a week or smthing I have a life and studies to take care of.
Choice of map,4 / 1
I was talking about SoloQ sorry if you misunderstood that. You have 0 communication with your teammates.
Pressure, unless the Survivor is playing a great nurse or Spirit, the killer is forced to wait for mistakes by the survivors
Okay this is hilarious. So, from your POV, survivors almost always play perfect and that's why we're OP? In tournament play, survivors are much stronger than killers. However, we're talking about SoloQ. If a SoloQ tournament was hosted, the killer would pretty much have the advantage.
Bias Maps, most maps offer survivors a multitude of areas so safe, that unless the aforementioned Killers are played
I can agree with this but still, you can win in any map as any killer. Maybe not as Myers or Legion, but that's not the entire role. Bubba is an avergae-ish killer and he's good on any map, for example.
Lastly, because the survivors are making mistakes, if the killer is playing a decent killer, such as Huntress, Plauge, Ect and not Nurse, then the only way progress is made is when survivors do not understand what they are suppose to do in a situation, or they are failing to do what is needed. You will never see a game in which survivor's (not even in SWF) win because of the killer is making a mistake, unless it is one of the better killers and it happens consistently
To this point I'm begging you please play SoloQ. I know people who play in red ranks that didn't know Plague was until her tome was released. 90% of the survivor playerbase is braindead. We soloq players are the weakest.
Sorry I literally log in twice a week or smthing I have a life and studies to take care of.As does everyone, yet I am still here able to reply consistently. Doesn't take that long to reply to someone, unlike what you imply.
This is still not justification of your claim here, but ok this point was really mute and wasn't meant to be replied to in the first place. It was a remark based entirely from your remark, nothing more, nothing less.
I was talking about SoloQ sorry if you misunderstood that. You have 0 communication with your teammates.Yes I am too, if survivors bring multiple map offering its more likely that survivors are picked. It doesn't matter if one survivor wanted The Game, and another wanted The Swamp and both survivors don't get they're way, the survivors are still getting they're way more times then not.
Okay this is hilarious. So, from your POV, survivors almost always play perfect and that's why we're OP?No, whenever the survivors play correctly. Hypothetically if both party's played perfectly Survivors will typically win or draw the game. Rarely would the Killer win. If its a nurse, then most games the killer would win or it would be a draw. This is because few killers like the Nurse actually take control from the survivors and give it back to the killer. Of course. this killer still has to prove though that he/she actually can pressure the survivors as exceptionally strong killers like Nurse.
If all survivors do what they should be doing then its hell for the killer to make any real traction, we are at a point to where meta strats involve not even healing after taking a hit, there is a reason for this.
In tournament play, survivors are much stronger than killers. However, we're talking about SoloQ. If a SoloQ tournament was hosted, the killer would pretty much have the advantage.Its weird you can admit that considering there are factors on why that is which you ignore.
In any case no, again if the survivors do they're job they will be fine. They don't need info, they would however be at a disadvantage strictly if a top tier killer were played in this specific situation you gave were reenacted. Although who knows, maybe the survivors would bring information perks considering you are talking about tournament play and therefore they would know what they were getting into before hand.
I can agree with this but still, you can win in any map as any killer. Maybe not as Myers or Legion, but that's not the entire role.If you mean to say you can play any killer and win vs a competent solo squad of survivors, then I would say I agree.
You know, the same way you CAN get killed for no reason as soon as you walk outside. Or you CAN get hit by a car while on the sidewalk.
Lots of things CAN happen, but its not likely.
Bubba is an avergae-ish killer and he's good on any map, for example.No he isn't, he fails entirely on any map with lots of windows. The Hospital is a great example.
Even on maps he is good to play in, assuming a survivor can't make it to a window they have plenty of counter play, Bubba has to guess if they are throwing the pallet they are at or keep running. If they guess wrong then they get a even longer chase.
To this point I'm begging you please play SoloQ. I know people who play in red ranks that didn't know Plague was until her tome was released. 90% of the survivor playerbase is braindead. We soloq players are the weakest.I have multiple times, and do.
Every time my teammates are decent its a win, every time they aren't decent its a loss.
Everyime my teammates understand the basics of what they are supposed to be doing its a win, every time a teammate dc's, or doesn't know what he is doing its a loss.
Majority of my games as survivor I have loss have been because of SoloQing, with that being said however, the reason has always been specifically because the survivor doesn't know what he is doing.
If he understood the basic meta, how to anti-stall hooks, the importance of gen pressure, and the ability to loop the killer for a typically chase then it wouldn't of mattered at all if he was in a group or not.
In fact, had he been in a SWF, they equally would of loss most likely with how bad some people are that I find as teammates.
Just because you are in a SWF doesn't instantly make you win.
Again "Meaning in theory everything a SWF does can have a purpose, it can be organized making it more efficient, and not only that but the information spread can be game changing in itself. These are the reasons most consider these a issue."
If they can't organize and aren't decent they are no better then survivors soloing.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2250828#Comment_2250828
Of course I mean in the lobby. You obviously don't understand how it works, the game heavily prioritizes the killers point of view, if the killer has ######### latency, it screws every survivor over.
Oh?
Ok, tell me how it works then.
Every game (in DBD) I have been in with one party lagging has put them at a disadvantage in my experience.
With the party lagging, and therefore seeing players teleport, ect.
So how exactly does a killer with bad internet have a advantage? Im genuinely curious.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2249274#Comment_2249274
How dense are you? If you see the killer has terrible ping find another game. Duh
If you mean in lobby then it would make more sense.
It still wouldn't make that much sense though because dedicated servers are a thing. So if the killer is lagging badly, it only really will effect him.
-
@notlonely said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2248592#Comment_2248592
Hello! I read your first statement and saw you're new to the game so I'll keep it short: Solo Survivor is the hardest role in the game as of now and if you disagree, PLEASE prove me wrong.
Hello! I read your first statement and saw you're new to the game so I'll keep it short:Hi, and I saw you assertion and laughed as it was ironic so I will keep this short as possible.
Solo Survivor is the hardest role in the game as of now and if you disagree, PLEASE prove me wrong.Because killer is the hardest role in the game by far.
If you are not playing the best killers then you basically have lost unless the survivors don't know what they are doing.
They control everything, from the map, to the allowed pressure the killer can be gave.
Lets go over the basics of what is allowed by a normal survivor(s):
- 3 potential base hooks
- Perks that give additional lives (Some can be used along with others potential giving more then one live, or in other cases can be reused giving a number of lives such as Dead Hard + Unbreakable as a simple combo)
- Choice of map,4 / 1
- Pressure, unless the Survivor is playing a great nurse or Spirit, the killer is forced to wait for mistakes by the survivors
- Bias Maps, most maps (if not all, at least that I can think about currently) offer survivors a multitude of areas so safe, that unless the aforementioned Killers are played, they can be looped for a solid 30 seconds (roughtly) before having to drop the pallet, and in some situations without even having to drop the pallet. (Tree loop is a great example)
- Low gen time. gen time is quite low, in theory AT BASE (no perks, toolboxes, ect to help repair) all gens can be done in 5 minutes, we know however this can drop down to 3 minutes at competitive play.
Any one of these issues would not be too significant, but because they all culminate, it seriously is a issue.
Survivors can take charge by simply doing gens, and offering the killer chases in which they don't instantly go down. SWF are not a issue because they are the only group that capitalizes on these things, but because they are the only group that can organize with these things.
Meaning in theory everything a SWF does can have a purpose, it can be organized making it more efficient, and not only that but the information spread can be game changing in itself. These are the reasons most consider these a issue.
If a single survivor does what he is suppose to be doing, then they will likely still win.
The only reason the killer wins any games, is because:
1.) They are genuinely much better then the survivors they are playing against (Many say because of broken matchmaking which is likely)
2.) The survivors are not trying, such as just BMing, griefing, dcing, ect
3.) Survivor is too immersed, or doesn't understand what is happening and dies incredibly soon
4.) Lastly, because the survivors are making mistakes, if the killer is playing a decent killer, such as Huntress, Plauge, Ect and not Nurse, then the only way progress is made is when survivors do not understand what they are suppose to do in a situation, or they are failing to do what is needed. You will never see a game in which survivor's (not even in SWF) win because of the killer is making a mistake, unless it is one of the better killers and it happens consistently
EDIT
Also you haven't replied to any of my points I made previously, yet called me new. That is genuinely intriguing and I just notice it.
-
@Bwsted said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2248519#Comment_2248519
You wouldn't detect the vpn directly, unless the ip was blaclisted. Regardless, the inflated ping would show up if the client is far from the servers.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2248571#Comment_2248571
You don't know what that means... still you decide it shouldn't be focused on and that it's not positive. WeirdChamp.
You don't know what that means... still you decide it shouldn't be focused on and that it's not positive. WeirdChamp.Yes because assuming it is something advantageous for the killer, and that you could prove they are that, how the hell would you having information of that help you? I thought that point was obvious, but clearly I have to baby feed you it in reverse.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2248571#Comment_2248571
Found a VPN killer boys
Nice assertion, I don't even know what the hell that is. I just know that the devs already focus on dumb things, no need to tell them to focus on another one that doesn't affect literally anything.
If you mean a killer that plays on a VPN, then what the hell would you care about that? As far as I know nothing would change compared to one that doesn't?
Lastly, lets say there was a killer playing on a VPN, and it did give them an advantage, how the hell would you being able to know that change anything?
Your logic doesn't make sense.
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2248592#Comment_2248592
Once everyone has the same or nearly the same information, you can balance the game around it. Currently we have seal team 6 on one end and a pack of seagulls flailing wildly on the other, with everything in between.
It makes the game impossible to balance.
Ping system to convey location or totems etc as well as a quick chat is the answer but bhvr refuse to put any effort or time into it from what i can tell. Nothing is more telling then what they did to small game and the "we hope solo survivors find it useful"
Once everyone has the same or nearly the same information, you can balance the game around it. Currently we have seal team 6 on one end and a pack of seagulls flailing wildly on the other, with everything in between.Then that is because those seagulls didn't follow they're instincts and do what they are suppose to be doing.
Such as survivors who are newer to the game won't do gens. Giving survivors that information won't chance too much for the lesser experienced players, and would literally change the meta and the game outright for the more experienced players.
Again, this is a stance advocating for wall hack during the time the killer is suppose to be rewarded.
It makes the game impossible to balance.Depends what you mean by balance, true or objective balance is always impossible no matter what.
Balance enough that it feel right to play (Chess for example) and there is no serious way to break a games balance is what most look for. Giving wall hack for being punished as a survivor is not balanced.
Ping system to convey location or totems etc as well as a quick chat is the answer but bhvr refuse to put any effort or time into it from what i can tell.Holy crap man, I doubt they wouldn't even consider this (I hope). You are taking information and wanting it to be easily accessible to a overpowering degree.
You clearly do not understand the balance of DBD, this game is not a team vs team game, its a 4v1. And at that Survivors already are strong enough considering they control the game.
Nothing is more telling then what they did to small game and the "we hope solo survivors find it useful"
You took that out of context, they hope that perk would be more useful because it was (and still is mostly) completely useless.
You are only touching on the fact the devs touch things that no one cares about. By the way Spine Chill exists.
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
Solo survivor is the weakest group of players right now (killers and obviously SWF are stronger). Why are they gatekeeping knowledge that SWF get for free, as this results in multiple survivors getting off gens, which is fantastic for the killer. It would make playing solo survivor way less clunky, and wouldn’t be too impactful to killers. Imo, this basic knowledge shouldn’t be locked behind a perk, and it’s honestly baffling that this is still an issue 5 years after launch.
Obviously, I don’t think the seeing the killer part of Kindred should be base kit.
Solo survivor is the weakest group of players right now (killers and obviously SWF are stronger).Killer are not, survivors control everything in or out of SWF unless you are playing vs a great Nurse, in that case you can have your cake back.
Why are they gatekeeping knowledge that SWF get for free, as this results in multiple survivors getting off gens, which is fantastic for the killer.Because one is a grey area (SWF), and the other is a mechanical change (What you are saying).
It would make playing solo survivor way less clunky, and wouldn’t be too impactful to killers.Yes it would, giving better survivors even more information just makes the game that much less balanced then what it is.
Survivors control the trails pressure, map, and basically the entire damn game. No need to now give them even more.
Imo, this basic knowledge shouldn’t be locked behind a perk, and it’s honestly baffling that this is still an issue 5 years after launch.You do realize you are advocating for base wall hack during a point in which the Killer should be rewarded for his OBJ, right?
Obviously, I don’t think the seeing the killer part of Kindred should be base kit.No that is not obvious at all, wth?
That is like saying "DS should be base kit", then saying "Obviously only when a generator is done".
Its both a bad idea, and for us to come to the assumption that there should be conditions on a perk other then its norm coming to base for either side would be super weird. We aren't mindreaders, we don't know what you are thinking.
-
@indieeden7 said:
Pig isn't as bad as people make out, her stealth ability is pretty bad however her RBTs have the potential to stall the game EXTREMELY well, she's also pretty fun to play which is an added bonus.
Or EXTREMELY terribly, more often then not very terrible.
-
I don't know what that means, but no. This shouldn't be focused on, it doesn't literally do anything positive.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
To be fair, you dont know why those persons are banned, because the ban-worthy posting will be deleted as well.
Correct, but I don't think it can always be fair simply because this is the most bans on any forum I have seen in my life.
-
@Mandy said:
I'm with @Orion & @EvilJoshy on this. I'd be fine for linking your game accounts to the forum - great way to stop all the alternate accounts that get created! But having stats to show who was worthy to give an opinion (which is what it would boil down to), would be pretty bad and create something completely elitist.
New players are just as important as veteran players and their opinion is just as valid - having stats showing on the forums would get those newer players points of view completely written off.
The whole "stats on show" would just make the discussions a big "I've got 2 more hours than you so I know better" type of thing, which isn't what we are looking for here at all.
Two counter points that I think are completely valid, and also the reason why I think what you declare makes no sense to me.
New players are just as important as veteran players and their opinion is just as valid - having stats showing on the forums would get those newer players points of view completely written off.Yes, they are people so they are equally important. With this being said however, why would you think they're (A newer player to a more experienced player by a notable margin) opinions are equally important if we are talking about specifics to the game.
I do not think this because I wouldn't even consider this a fair comparison to make. The reason for this would be someone who just started could not possibly have more understanding then even a casual yet alone the more experienced players. In turn meaning that they could not have basic understandings of strats, balance overall, game mechanics, ect.
It wouldn't make sense if you were to do anything and treat X's to Y's opinions the same if X doesn't even have the required knowledge to understand the common understandings?
That would be akin to getting a chess coach with a LOWER rating then you...
Of course, there are plenty of times experienced players are not being rational, and say dumb things in the process that aren't validated. That is basically a given, but in general someone with more experience would be more likely to be correct over someone who has less experience by logic therefore why would you treat the opinions of the two as equally accurate??
The whole "stats on show" would just make the discussions a big "I've got 2 more hours than you so I know better" type of thing, which isn't what we are looking for here at all.Yhea I suppose, but as it is right now is a "Haha, I am better then you and you can't disprove it or even investigate the claim" thing.
I personally don't want this feature to come to the forums if it forces you to connect your steam to get here because I think everyone would get banned from the forums due to how critically a small interaction that a mod dislikes can get you jailed/banned.
I do understand however that this is something that could be appreciated however, so I think it would be fine to have as a optional feature. Since the forums need some extra things as they haven't changed alot in recent and could use improvement.
-
@NomiNomad said:
Every single time I've played Survivor lately, I always spawn with at least 1 of my teammates-- If not my whole team. So legitimately-- What is the point of Shrouds of Binding if this is something that is basekit? It's just more useless fluff in the Bloodweb.
Yhea I would agree this is just another thing in the bloodweb.
This serves no practical use outside of SWF, and can actually end up harming the Survivors if going into trails solo for these reasons:
- If the killer happens to be near you for any reason; and now your team is near by they're now is potential for the killers flexibility of options, as well as the ability to quickly access which are the more experienced survivors encountered if found with this being hard not to be found due to density of survivors making it harder to hide.
- If the survivors predominately are spawned next to each other then they (obviously) are not separated doing different gens, so if the killer comes to this gen during a rotation off of 3 other gens it is entirely likely the killer can drastically up the pressure during that game as now the survivors have to worry about the killer possibly downing someone and hooking near this gen, and also it regressing due to ruin or kicks least they forfeit the gen. In doing so however they have to admit they have wasted time, and this gives the killer a headstart in the match.
-
@grayon444 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2231111#Comment_2231111
Im sorry i didnt phrase it properly.I ment to say that the games uniqueness is what keeps this game fresh regardless of the boring objective mechanics (Gens).
Wouldn't that just be a over simplification of exactly what I said????
-
@grayon444 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2231043#Comment_2231043
Also, we have been doing the same boring stuff every time.Hold M1.I cant wait when the core mechanics get reworked.
This reply doesn't make sense, what are you replying too?
-
The lack of genuine competition in a competitive market I think would most strongly be the main reason.
I can not recall many games that are like DBD at all, and those that I can typically make DBD's broken balance seem balanced or have died for other reasons.
Its like GTA5 (ignoring it is piggy backing off of the franchises fame), it started with little but I don't even recall any game that can capture the feel of GTA5 besides saints row and by the time the things in the game are less unique due to clones or mechanical implementation in other games, it already grew to be the super power in that unique genre.
I think this makes alot of sense too because DBD was even less balanced back in the day, so those players who stayed there likely did because DBD had unique features.
-
@burt0r said:
Ehm am I going crazy here? The title of the threads contains frustration AS the killer while the post is about survivor being the more frustrating role due to bleed out slugging? Then follows a more or less useful discussion about both sides being stressful depending on if the commentator only read the title or the whole post, a dev reminds everyone to stay civil just for the sake of it without anything insulting or aggressive until that point and lastly on the second comment page it suddenly noed is focus of the comments as if those were from a completely different thread? Am I missing some connections here or is this whole thread kind of strange?
LMAO. XD
-
@Rizzo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2198683#Comment_2198683
It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but in general.
Oh ok.
-
@Rizzo said:
Please keep the discussion civil and respectful, you can disagree with others without belittling them or their opinions.
Whom are you saying this too? If me, can you site exactly made you reply to me with this reply?
-
@Karao_Ke said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2192642#Comment_2192642
I'm not reading all that
I find it hilarious that you posted on a forum, obviously seeking responses, just to blow someone off because their reply was more than 2 sentences.
Thats likely because he realized I made valid points and instead of saying "Oh well that is a good point", he would rather just pretend he didn't read it.
I think this is more likely considering it doesn't make sense to reply to something if you aren't going to read it unless you are in a conversation thats been on-going. This is all of course just professed, but I would bet money on it that it is correct.
-
@miketheratguy said:
This is a massive thread and I don't feel like reading it all, but I just wanted to add my two cents: My favorite game is one that lasts at least 7-10 minutes and has a good amount of back and forth, uncertainty over who's actually going to win. I don't care if I win or lose, I just want to know that I had enough time to accomplish something and gain some decent points.
The worst games are the ones that end within like 2-3 minutes as a killer because everyone was way too good at rushing gens, or as a survivor because the killer spawned close, made a beeline for you, then hooked and camped you. It's no fun for anybody to spend 3-4 minutes (or more) of everything that happens between matches only to get a game that lasts two minutes and yields barely enough BP to purchase a rusty toolbox.
Its actually not that big, its just this guy can not fathom what I say for his life.
-
I have replied to your points,No you haven't, what about "Still neither of us has insulted the other", a simple point on how we haven't insulted eachother you haven't even replied too. In fact, I have invited you to quote everything I have said and reply to it one by one but you fail to do so.
but you yet again consistently don't understand the preface of context. I made a point in context, you cannot then disagree with that point out of context.Again yes we can as long as it is rational, regardless of the context, if someone says "X is true" you can directly refute that point and have your own original thoughts about that point regardless of what anyone else has said. This is again, why I think you don't understand what context is.
That's not how discussions work bud.I believe you mean logic specfically but in any case that is how ration, critical thinking, logic and THE (specfically) discussion work about anything in specfic.
Anyone who's taken any subject based on evaluating a point knows this, maybe you need to go back a few years and retake a history class or some [BAD WORD].Clearly you think your position is the norm but it is not and history has nothing to do with any of this so that makes no sense.
You obviously have no clue what your saying, and are hanging on to the thin thread of "I'm right and your wrong, that's that".No it isn't and this demonstrates you don't understand, read, or listen to what I am saying.
You have not answered a single on of my main points, hiding behind the "that's not my opinion" card that you hide behind.Sited me anywhere I have said this, or implied this.
You deny context, and refuse any logic about how and why context matters here.I do deny the context of someone elses conversation with you because I am not arguing what they are arguing, I am arguing exactly what you have said as I disagreed.
Ive been using the common usage of every single word I've said, whilst you have just debated in bad faith.No you haven't. This is why "reward", in your use was off to me.
On top of this, I will quote you again, but I'm not going back to the post that you originally said this on, you said "if the survivor plays correctly the killer should only get one", in here youve repeatedly said this is not your position that the desired result is this.Should as in will under best play (hyperbolic statement), but otherwise yes. Correct, for surviviors this is not the desired situation in terms of what would be best. It is only the best that can be acquired. I still don't understand how you can't fathom this.
So which I'm going to say your inability to debate shows here.That doesn't make sense, at least your English hasn't been broken and has made sense though so we might actually get somewhere.
The only other reason you would put this here is to say it as a fact, as in that's what's going to happen, which we both agreed is not how debates work.That is because the assertion is valid due to under best play (hyperbolic statement) that IS what is going to happen.
This is like me saying "If you die, we don't understand if there could be anything after death or if it just ends" and then you go "SEE LOOK, you are making an assertion and we already agreed that is not how we debate!"
This is ironically where the context of me the believe X is reasonable considering the factors prove true under observation. I still can not understand how you can't understand anything but believe you don't understand context properly but would rather use it as a buzz word to get out of the conversation.
Your arguments have repeatedly been nonsensical, but I've tried again and again to be patient and explain this to you. Unless your using some unheard of definition for should that no one uses. Then your a hypocrite among all the other things you've said.Your inablitity to comprehend doesn't change if something is nonsensical objectively, it isn't objectively nonsensical you just are having difficulty comprehending it. To which I am still not sure as to why.
Again I specify that should as in will, due to best play, its rhetorical to describe what will happen. (hyperbolic statement).
I replied to the points point by point, up until the last comment in which I realised nothing was going to come from this discussion. Its obvious your stuck in your ways, as I have looked briefly at your other discussions, which you seem incapable of doing.You have yet to site everything I have said in any of my comments, instead you only cherry pick the points you find as weak and now that you realize most everyone of the points I have said aren't as weak as you thought, now you backtrack. This is why you are dishonest zir.
You haven't defined clearly a single word you've used,you've pivoted in every point and on top of that fall behind the comment of someone being "disingenuous". You overall have displayed yourself as a bad faith actor who cares nothing for discourse.You haven't made a direct question to define anything, you just back peddle. Disingenuous would mean in the way I am using it, pretending to know little or/and not being sincere. Hence why its a descriptor, if you were to google the definition is would be :
"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."All in all very similar.
we aren't going to get anything done as we both seem unable to discuss this due to a misunderstanding on a foundational level, and since you are just deflecting any point I make about this nothing is to be gained by having this conversation. Good day.No, just you aren't willing to reply to anything I say. You would rather have me reply to you, and then ask another question in reply all the while ignoring all the questions I have asked you. This is why you are dishonest.
-
@ilovedbd123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2195554#Comment_2195554
I don't think there's a language barrier (unless your foreign). And I haven't used any words incorrectly. I've been in quite a few debates myself, and never had someone have the audacity to assume such bs.
Maybe we are just not understanding each other, but that by no means is a language barrier.
You have consistently used improper language, been unable to fathom my points, and consistently do not understand how reasoning/logic works. I highly doubt you have had any meaningful conversation with anything.
You haven't even replied to any of my points this entire conversation, you have consistently brang up other points after I site one, and after I reply to those points and add counter points you ignore them.
If you speak English fluently, then you are the most dishonest person I have ever met in my life according to your behavior.
-
@ilovedbd123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2193658#Comment_2193658
It seems like neither of us can reach a reasonable conclusion to this debate, so rather than going on and on in what could be another few weeks going into the intricacies of yet another argument I'm gonna call it quits here.
Have a good day
Again, due to the barrier in language you can't hope to start a debate.
This is a conversation albeit broken until you can.
-
@ilovedbd123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2191144#Comment_2191144
So calling someone disingenuous isn't an insult? I think the one being disingenuous here is you. I was replying to someone and when you disagreed with a position I put fourth,you have to realise the context is in. Its like saying murder is wrong, but in self defence it's ok. Context means everything in a lot of instances and I feel like your not even trying to understand this.
Also I don't exact quote because idk how with this website, I tend to use speech marks when quoting directly. If you could tell me how I'll use it in future discussions.
The Op, and the quotes that I have pulled out that you reacted to outside of this, were all due to the main point that I brought up, it seems you don't understand the context of the overall discussion you brought up. Maybe stop being condescending and learn to debate. You say you have done it for a while, so I pity the people you " debate" with if you use such tactless devices and openly lie here. If you can't even have a simple discussion without insulting someone then you obviously are either new to discussions, or too hot headed to be taken seriously as your opinions are set in stone so there is no discussion with you.
The reward isn't getting up the stairs, this seems more disingenuous than anything I've said, it's that they have escaped from what would've been a hook in basement, a massive reward for the killer, swooped from them. They have the ability to escape, heal and then go onto a generator. That is the reward. Don't debate in such bad faith.
My definition of inferring is that you don't say something, but there is other meanings/ effects of what you have said. The other effect is that someone escaped the killer in that chase in this case. And in most people's opinion this is a reward, much like dead hard "rewards" someone for getting hit ect..
"If the killer played correctly he would as well only have one downed", how is that the correct play then. Surely the correct play would then be to stand at the top and not follow them down to ensure the double kill. How is that not the logical play. They ensure they get the 3k (they had already gotten one, I'd asked) instead of potentially getting a 2k. That's the right play there then isn't it? At least from the killers perspective.
The reason this is taken weeks is because I'm not using this as frequently as I used to. Hence why my reply is late. Usually it would be at most a few hours late. Not because of how objective my language is. I'm using the most common definition of words there is.
Reward:a thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement. In this case, they are given the reward of escaping the basement and a possible (at worst usually) hook outside the basement. This is a reward to said survivor who escaped, not a reward to the whole survivor team but a reward to the individual.
Infer:deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. In this case, you said that a person should escape from this. But we aren't debating (or at least shouldn't be) what is the case, but what SHOULD be the case (what the desired result is) hence why I assume that since you said someone should escape, that you believe your desired result to be that someone escapes. When you debate, you don't say X is the case now, so it's right. Using this as a point here, it is common to assume you want this to be as it is.
So calling someone disingenuous isn't an insult?No, no it isn't. It is a describer based on your actions. If you do not want to be called X, then don't do X. Its not like I am just calling you names, I am being specific in what you are doing.
I think the one being disingenuous here is you.Couldn't care less, this is laughable considering what you have said so far.
I was replying to someone and when you disagreed with a position I put fourth,you have to realise the context is in. Its like saying murder is wrong, but in self defence it's ok. Context means everything in a lot of instances and I feel like your not even trying to understand this.It doesn't matter what you say to someone else, if you make a claim or statement then other people can reply to it, and do not need to bear whatever the person you have said has said.
If someone says X is correct, then you say no Y is correct, regardless of what the first person says, I can disagree with your claim being Y and it has nothing to do with X nor my thoughts on X.
The comparison you made has made no sense to me and you haven't even made a proper retort for me to understand what you are trying to compare what to what.
Also I don't exact quote because idk how with this website, I tend to use speech marks when quoting directly. If you could tell me how I'll use it in future discussions.You mean quotation marks, and all you do is highlight whatever it is you want to quote and press the small black symbol to the left.
The Op, and the quotes that I have pulled out that you reacted to outside of this, were all due to the main point that I brought up, it seems you don't understand the context of the overall discussion you brought up.I am starting to think you don't understand what context is, our conversations context has nothing to do with the context of whatever else you were talking about.
If someone says "I like hippos" and you reply "I am not so sure, I think hippos are not good", and then I reply to you "Actually hippos are good for X reason" then there is two different contexts in this situation. The context with someone else, and then the context with me. You clearly do not understand what you are talking about, so stop being dishonest, and simplify your language if you can't properly understand these words.
Maybe stop being condescending and learn to debate.I am not (purposely) being condescending, learn to reply to what I am saying so this can even be considered a debate. I am struggling trying to explain logic to you, yet alone have a debate with you.
You say you have done it for a while, so I pity the people you " debate" with if you use such tactless devices and openly lie here.Just another invalid assertion.
If you can't even have a simple discussion without insulting someone then you obviously are either new to discussions, or too hot headed to be taken seriously as your opinions are set in stone so there is no discussion with you.Still neither of us has insulted the other, I am starting to think you don't understand what that word means either.
The reward isn't getting up the stairs, this seems more disingenuous than anything I've said, it's that they have escaped from what would've been a hook in basement, a massive reward for the killer, swooped from them. They have the ability to escape, heal and then go onto a generator. That is the reward. Don't debate in such bad faith.Reread what I have said, because your reply doesn't make sense.
My definition of inferring is that you don't say something, but there is other meanings/ effects of what you have said. The other effect is that someone escaped the killer in that chase in this case. And in most people's opinion this is a reward, much like dead hard "rewards" someone for getting hit ect..Finally you are actually replying to something I have said, sadly it doesn't make sense.
That is not the common definition of Infer nor is that proper use of the word effect, stop using words that you don't understand please. I am not trying to even be rude while saying this, just if you keep using these words and you keep getting them incorrect then we both will be confused and never be able to understand eachother.
You second use of effect is fine, just off. In any case, what is your main language?
I can't even reply to what you have said effectively because both the English and logic here is broken which hurts my head to even contemplate.
"If the killer played correctly he would as well only have one downed", how is that the correct play then.Again, I think the fact you don't understand what I am saying here is because there is a language barrier.
Surely the correct play would then be to stand at the top and not follow them down to ensure the double kill. How is that not the logical play. They ensure they get the 3k (they had already gotten one, I'd asked) instead of potentially getting a 2k. That's the right play there then isn't it? At least from the killers perspective.Its not logical because as said, in a previous reply. Reread what I have said in the past as I am not repeating myself. At least this is your first honest question but I have already answered it.
The reason this is taken weeks is because I'm not using this as frequently as I used to. Hence why my reply is late. Usually it would be at most a few hours late. Not because of how objective my language is. I'm using the most common definition of words there is.No the reason is because you can't understand what I am saying due to a language barrier.
For example, what you have just said made no sense. Language can not be objective. You are not and have not been using words correctly, if you were I would not be bringing it up.
Reward:a thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement. In this case, they are given the reward of escaping the basement and a possible (at worst usually) hook outside the basement. This is a reward to said survivor who escaped, not a reward to the whole survivor team but a reward to the individual.Yup, a reward is typically used in achievement because as said before if you use the word broadly it is too loose a definition. Anything can be considered a reward for any given action.
I will try it again, if you walk up stairs that in itself is a reward because you put in the effort to go up stairs and that is what you were trying to do therefore walking upstairs is a reward.
Looking up at the sky is a reward because it allows you to see the sky, ect. This is why we do not use reward so loosely and it has implications that are not general. Please stop using this word, and stop giving me a hard time about something you clearly can not comprehend due to the language barrier.
Infer:deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.Correct?
In this case, you said that a person should escape from this.No, the best play from both sides WILL result in one escaping and one downing.
But we aren't debating (or at least shouldn't be) what is the case, but what SHOULD be the case (what the desired result is) hence why I assume that since you said someone should escape, that you believe your desired result to be that someone escapes.Your broken English yet again makes me unable to reply to this as I don't understand what you just said. Stop using words you don't understand.
When you debate, you don't say X is the case now, so it's right.Correct. You specifically give counter reasons to someone's argument and evaluate each others argument to see who is logically more reasonable, and to which of the two you can test.
IE: Saying god is real is not reasonable if you can not demonstrate such thing and/or the other person does not have methods to test the claim.
IE: Saying god is real is reasonable and sound if you can demonstrate it and other people can also perceive and/or test that information to figure it out as well.
Using this as a point here, it is common to assume you want this to be as it is.In conjunction with what you have said before, I am still confused as to what you mean.
IF you are asserting that I think the quote above this one is what I want, then this is exactly why I call you dishonest as I have never said nor implicated that. I specifically said that because that is my point, so it makes no sense to think I am saying that I want that when I clearly demonstrated I dont.