Skip to content
Avatar

DerpyPlayz

DerpyPlayz

About

Username
DerpyPlayz
Joined
Visits
325
Last Active

Comments

  • @Jasix said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2177442#Comment_2177442

    DS is only a second chance perk if YOU the killer decide to go after the unhooked survivor. I couldn't tell you the last time I had DS used on me even BEFORE the rework. If you are getting DS - that's a situation you put yourself in the majority of the time as killer. Otherwise DS is just a waste of a perk slot so long as the killer doesn't tunnel. I don't need to tunnel to get 3-4ks on killer when I play: Doctor, Huntress, Plague, and Hag are my main killers I play.

    Unbreakable - uhhh don't slug. Tada - another wasted perk slot.

    As a survivor I know how to counter things like Blood Warden - someone is down - don't open gate until they are on hook - tada I just wasted your perk. Same goes with killers - Don't wanna be DS or have a survivor use UB - don't tunnel and slug - tada you just wasted their perks.

    Acting like & saying survivors are the only ones with second chance perks - is a blatant lie. When you post with "main" bias it shows and makes those of us who can look at things objectively just roll our eyes at your hyperbole.

    90% of the community - please stop making up BS statistics. #1 The forums ARE NOT a representation of the community as a whole. #2 There has been NO poll for the ACTUAL community on these perks. Pulling numbers out of your butt is just another hyperbolic move and does nothing to validate your statement - it does however make you look silly when you start to speak for 90% of the community without merit.


    DS is only a second chance perk if YOU the killer decide to go after the unhooked survivor.

    So then it is by definition a second chance perk? Does it give a second change? Yes? Then clearly it IS a second chance perk and your attitude with this is odd considering how demonstrably wrong you would have to be to think otherwise. Regardless of if you get the second life or not out of a perk doesn't matter.

    That is like saying you didn't get any use out of Corrupt Intervention so its not a gen perk.

    I couldn't tell you the last time I had DS used on me even BEFORE the rework.

    Cool, couldn't care less because thats not common at all and you are in the rare amount of players. This is just a anecdotal fallacy really.

    If you are getting DS - that's a situation you put yourself in the majority of the time as killer.

    This is news to me, what about if all the gens are getting popped and you are vsing a bully squad so you have no chance to kill anyone unless you tunnel?

    What about when you hook someone, and then they run off then you find them later but because the time hasn't been lost they jump into a locker and you couldn't find any other person to chase? Is it your fault now you have to eat DS, or waste time waiting?

    These are just some situations.

    Otherwise DS is just a waste of a perk slot so long as the killer doesn't tunnel.

    AND isn't put into ANY SITUATION in which it is mandatory to capture the survivor, such as off hook at end game collapse, ect.

    I don't need to tunnel to get 3-4ks on killer when I play: Doctor, Huntress, Plague, and Hag are my main killers I play.

    Then you are never put into a situation in which you need too, you are incredibly lucky, or the survivors you play are not good.

    Unbreakable - uhhh don't slug. Tada - another wasted perk slot.

    Another second life situational perk that is meta that you think is bad. Your takes are so bad, what about the situation of last gen is getting popped but you have to down the person near you and slugg as the only method to gain any pressure?

    What about if the survivors made a mistake you capitalized on that required you to slug?

    Again, these are both clutch perks that stop plays the killer can make, even if they are justified in doing so.

    As a survivor I know how to counter things like Blood Warden - someone is down - don't open gate until they are on hook - tada I just wasted your perk. Same goes with killers - Don't wanna be DS or have a survivor use UB - don't tunnel and slug - tada you just wasted their perks.

    Not many people think Blood Warden is good, most run it as a filler perk for end game strats and that is it.

    Acting like & saying survivors are the only ones with second chance perks - is a blatant lie. When you post with "main" bias it shows and makes those of us who can look at things objectively just roll our eyes at your hyperbole.

    Killers do not have perks that outright give them a second chance in the game with no justification.

    NOED can't even be used till end game, and Devour Hope requires hook and still can be destroyed at any point in the game before you even get its requirement, which are the only two perks at the top of my head that I could see you even argue this for.

    90% of the community - please stop making up BS statistics.

    I would agree with this.

    #1 The forums ARE NOT a representation of the community as a whole.

    Correct, however the more active community are on these social areas. The casual who plays once a week before he goes to work is most likely not getting on the board to argue for this game.

    #2 There has been NO poll for the ACTUAL community on these perks.

    This is the actual community here, as is anything that has to do officially with this game. Its not the entire community, but this is the actual community.

    Pulling numbers out of your butt is just another hyperbolic move and does nothing to validate your statement - it does however make you look silly when you start to speak for 90% of the community without merit.

    Yes, if there is no justification then this is true and I agree.

    in Doctors who only 3 Gen. Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @JordanMalicious said:

    I enjoy playing as doctor sometimes. He's good for a laugh and actually fun to play. Going against doctors isn't much of an issue for me either. If I get outplayed, I give them props and move on. I've recently run into a handful of doctor players that seem to refuse to leave their 3 Gen from the very start of the match. They wouldn't chase anyone, they would just patrol the 3 gen they found and do nothing else.

    I'm not saying you CAN'T do this, I understand it is a viable strat. I just, it partially feels like holding the game hostage, but it's also just boring af.

    I know I don't get to dictate how others enjoy the game, it's just very VERY boring and frustrating to go against. If I had a swf it might be easier but I am almost always a solo Q player.

    Anybody else have similar experiences? Maybe some insight to help me understand how this might be enjoyable for the killer? Maybe just a different perspective? I appreciate any feedback :)

    I enjoy playing as doctor sometimes. He's good for a laugh and actually fun to play. Going against doctors isn't much of an issue for me either. If I get outplayed, I give them props and move on.

    I don't like playing as the doctor at all, he is too weak. He is fun to play vs though, I agree with that.

    I've recently run into a handful of doctor players that seem to refuse to leave their 3 Gen from the very start of the match. They wouldn't chase anyone, they would just patrol the 3 gen they found and do nothing else.

    You don't three gen with doctor, that is something absurd. If everyone just spread out and does gens, its game over. Hell you only need two survivors that constantly pressure gens in this situation really.

    I'm not saying you CAN'T do this, I understand it is a viable strat. I just, it partially feels like holding the game hostage, but it's also just boring af.

    I disagree completely, while you can do it I don't find it viable at all. You are talking about a M1 killer who's power is used for limited pallet/window disabling that is easy to counter and for information.

    I know I don't get to dictate how others enjoy the game, it's just very VERY boring and frustrating to go against. If I had a swf it might be easier but I am almost always a solo Q player.

    You don't even need a SWF, but if you had one assuming you guys are average, no just ok, then you guys would crush the doctor. Least you should.

    Anybody else have similar experiences? Maybe some insight to help me understand how this might be enjoyable for the killer? Maybe just a different perspective? I appreciate any feedback :)

    Nope, never get 3 gen doctors because thats just a bad idea, I have gotten three gen hags which can actually be a issue but it has its counter play too but because its not the killer you said I won't talk about it.

    Well, if he is just controlling gens and for some reason you all are not pressuring the gens then how wouldn't it be enjoyable for him? He is just playing the game.

    in Doctors who only 3 Gen. Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @KolbyKolbyKolby said:

    I have 4,600 hours in this damn game. Not too much by some standards, a lot by others.

    Sometimes you get a group of survivors that like to teabag and click flashlights, and do all sorts of things that amount to being extremely annoying.

    But I'll say, which my thousands of hours, spent playing every killer, every survivor, every perk in the game on every map with every combination of items and situations...

    No survivor has ever made me have as bad of a time as some killers seem determined to do. I honestly cannot understand why so many people feel like they are genuinely bullied because they get blinded or someone teabags after a pallet stun. These are always just annoyances to me, ones that make downing that survivor feel even better when the moment comes, because if you are determined, you will down them.

    I have never had a survivor put me on the floor and bleed me out for four straight minutes because I hooked another survivor. It's simply impossible, survivors don't have anything more than the ability to be annoying.

    But damn if I didn't just get bled out 3 games in a row for getting flashlight saves. I've been blinded as a killer, sometimes even seemingly through walls, but I've never felt the need to down someone and just waste 4 minutes of my time to prove some kind of point. I simply do not enjoy doing something that is intentionally making sure someone is miserable, that's sociopathic stuff.

    Sometimes I wish I could force a killer to sit there in timeout for 4 minutes until their game forcibly ended or make them DC. Seems like it might be fair, something to actually live up to the bullying everyone seems to think exists.

    I've never felt the need to do that in my thousands of hours as killer, maybe except when the 'hook tech' exploit was in the game for a while, but honestly an exploit that forces you to camp someone out is in your own hands.

    I've just never, ever had a game as killer feel so bad that it makes me stop playing, when it seems to exist in abundance when playing survivor. Especially when for 3 games in a row you wait 10 minutes for a game to get bled out on the floor for... using an item?

    I have 4,600 hours in this damn game. Not too much by some standards, a lot by others.

    I don't care if you have 10,000 hours it is totally irrelevant, and is annoying you think that that means anything so much as to bring it up.


    Sometimes you get a group of survivors that like to teabag and click flashlights, and do all sorts of things that amount to being extremely annoying.

    Yup, that is what happens when the power curve is survivor sided and you are anywhere on anything that is connected online and allows you to interact with other people in any meaningful capacity.

    But I'll say, which my thousands of hours, spent playing every killer, every survivor, every perk in the game on every map with every combination of items and situations...

    Still couldn't care less, I don't know why you keep stroking yourself.

    No survivor has ever made me have as bad of a time as some killers seem determined to do. I honestly cannot understand why so many people feel like they are genuinely bullied because they get blinded or someone teabags after a pallet stun. These are always just annoyances to me, ones that make downing that survivor feel even better when the moment comes, because if you are determined, you will down them.

    What the hell is this thread even about, this would be the reverse of the topic you decided to title it. In any case, the game is survivor sided, so if you haven't played a survivor game that made you want to ######### and have played a game vs killers that made you, then you are either lying, you rarely ever play killer, or you are insanely lucky.

    If the survivors are that much better then you, they can farm you vs your will because they control the game and you don't unless you are something insane like a god nurse.

    I have never had a survivor put me on the floor and bleed me out for four straight minutes because I hooked another survivor. It's simply impossible, survivors don't have anything more than the ability to be annoying.

    Right, instead you can have survivors hold the game hostage for half a hour or longer if they want since you decided to play X killer for the first time and are just starting the game, constantly teabagging and flashing you with your only hope to dc or hope they finish gens already. You know, annoying for tens of minutes to the entire game or however long they want the game to last.

    But damn if I didn't just get bled out 3 games in a row for getting flashlight saves. I've been blinded as a killer, sometimes even seemingly through walls, but I've never felt the need to down someone and just waste 4 minutes of my time to prove some kind of point. I simply do not enjoy doing something that is intentionally making sure someone is miserable, that's sociopathic stuff.

    Cool, couldn't care less.

    Sometimes I wish I could force a killer to sit there in timeout for 4 minutes until their game forcibly ended or make them DC. Seems like it might be fair, something to actually live up to the bullying everyone seems to think exists.

    This is ironically sociopathic, forcing someone to be in time out? How is that any better then what you just said. At least slugging someone most likely has justification, if it doesn't you should be blaming your teammates for leaving you on the floor.

    I've never felt the need to do that in my thousands of hours as killer, maybe except when the 'hook tech' exploit was in the game for a while, but honestly an exploit that forces you to camp someone out is in your own hands.

    Damn, you really like to stroke your fire man, still the amount of hours you have is irrelevant. Considering you are implicating a clear point, at this point it is just a argument from authority and anecdotal fallacies.

    I've just never, ever had a game as killer feel so bad that it makes me stop playing, when it seems to exist in abundance when playing survivor. Especially when for 3 games in a row you wait 10 minutes for a game to get bled out on the floor for... using an item?

    Nice bias, it happens on both sides. I would argue more for Survivors specifically because they are more powerful then most killers, however regardless it only takes one side having a higher skill ceiling that the other side can not compete with to bully.

    Again, if you have to wait 3 years and then bleed out, blame your teammates not the killer. The killer just downed you, your teammates saw you through a wall and stared at you while your other teammate was in chase.

    in Sometimes playing killer is frustrating. Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @ Antares2332 said:

    There should be an in-game option to submit a video of the hacker as evidence. You only have to have a program to record the screen and send it to the developers. Also, to avoid false reports.

    Why is this not a fact?

    Because this is pretty ridiculous and I don't think it is as simple as you think it is.

    Cheaters already get banned in time, so something like this would be really pointless. In any case, this would take a unreal amount of time for humans to look over if the idea was added, very much so because people like to report players in this game when they get salty for any reason.

    in New Report of Hacking System Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @piggygooik said:

    I don't really play this killer all too much cuz IMO he/she is kinda boring. It's just running and stabbing.

    since I don't really play him /her too much how would you buff, would you give him a new ability like Scott junds idea to make him more like he was was in his trailer( also one other thing I don't like about him he was a clickbait killer) or just straight-up buff him.

    Well his main problems are:

    • Legion is easy to counter, as all you have to do is not heal. New survivors will have issue with this but more experienced survivors already don't heal to build up pressure so that is a big issue with the Legion.
    • He power is counter-intuitive, it basically gives you a free hit if the survivor is healthy at the cost of losing your power to continue chase or being forced to chase someone else if not wasting time more so for the Legion rather then the survivior.
    • Which leads me into the next point, his duration for his power with how its suppose to work is too short or he is too slow or both to use it effectively vs survivors who are aware/far away as they can just run away to a pallet and now you have a 50/50 mindgame around pallet while timed all the while by the time you get across the map to that survivor your power is going to run out or you have just enough time to hit them which is not good at all.

    These are the key issues, so I am not sure you can fix his power without changing it greatly.

    in legion isnt really in a good spot, how would you fix him Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • He's terrible, he is a basic M1 killer that has a ability that can't be used easily. He got better after his buff, but he needs a new one as he is still incredibly easy to bully and 9/10 times you will question what is even the point of using his knives when most of the time his M1 is more effective.

    in The Trickster Tier Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @NomiNomad said:

    I am once again asking you a few things as someone who has no barely any information about Resident Evil.

    I've been lurking in on the conversations about who the characters might be, and I've started to see a few arguments against Nemesis, Mr. X, is that they don't really do anything except walk menacingly towards you in their respective games. This is commonly in favor of Lady Dimetriscu as the new killer.

    But... She does the exact same thing. Right? I've watched somebody play it, and she just... Walks towards you, shouts something about you being a stupid man thing, and that's... It. I don't really know anything about Mr. X or Nemesis, but Lady D seems like she would be a really... Boring choice for a killer. She has claws. She's tall and hot. That's it?

    I guess what I'm asking is what really makes any of the big names mentioned, Mr. X, Nemesis, Lady D, different? They all really seem to fit the same stereotype to me. This isn't me bashing Resident Evil at all, I 100% acknowledge the dramatic effect the series had on Video Game horror, I guess I'm just trying to understand why everyone seems so hooked on these three?

    I've been lurking in on the conversations about who the characters might be, and I've started to see a few arguments against Nemesis, Mr. X, is that they don't really do anything except walk menacingly towards you in their respective games. This is commonly in favor of Lady Dimetriscu as the new killer.

    Which is all hearsay. No one really knows, and those who do know such as the devs haven't said anything yet.

    But... She does the exact same thing. Right? I've watched somebody play it, and she just... Walks towards you, shouts something about you being a stupid man thing, and that's... It. I don't really know anything about Mr. X or Nemesis, but Lady D seems like she would be a really... Boring choice for a killer. She has claws. She's tall and hot. That's it?

    No, they are different viruses as far as I know. The Cadou is what plagues Dimetriscu according to what I gather. Anyway ignoring the lore, they are based off viruses and have unique traits about them. In fact, both Nemesis and Dimestriscu have different forms much unlike they're human forms. Dimestriscu turns from a vampire into a vampire Dragon, and Nemisis into a unusual creature in RE3R. So I am personally not convinced it will be them unless they just stick to they're original (first) forms.

    I guess what I'm asking is what really makes any of the big names mentioned, Mr. X, Nemesis, Lady D, different? They all really seem to fit the same stereotype to me. This isn't me bashing Resident Evil at all, I 100% acknowledge the dramatic effect the series had on Video Game horror, I guess I'm just trying to understand why everyone seems so hooked on these three?

    They are placeholders for the series, you don't think about Rockstar without thinking about GTA, you don't think about Sekiro without thinking about Wolf, ect.

    Its not about what people think is going to be the next RE killer due to anything other then preference really it seems.

    in So, Resident Evil fans. Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @ilovedbd123 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173467#Comment_2173467

    So when you bring up a point about one of my posts, Context doesn't matter is what you have essentially said here. I was in a discussion, in which you brought up a point opposing something I said. I then said where you had said this thing, and how in the context of the discussion this is what that means. Maybe you should be more precise or just not quote something I've said and instead just @ me. That would mean you have a point outside of the discussion I was previously having with you. But unless words have no meaning in your eyes or you have a blatant disregard of how your words are interpreted and how you should put fourth points that are outside of the discussion we were having. Or you just don't care to read context. Either way it's obvious you care not for fruitful discussion with the quote "disingenuous" and "telling a child what sight is" that you just believe that you have to be right and your impossible to reason with and are being overly defencive.

    This discussion was about whether or not standing on top of the stairs here was a good thing, and whether you should be allowed to do it. I made a few comments with the base decision of that person had already messed up to be in the basement, so why should they then be able to disregard such and get out. That killer could have been just ensuring that he didn't mess up and let the 2 people out (only one person probably would've escaped). You then quoted me saying a bunch of things as a contention to my point (from what I can tell at least, unless words have no meaning) and one of these being , and I will quote for the third time, "if survivors play correctly you will only down one". So let's look at the situation again. These survivors have already messed up to be in the basement, the last place they want to be. And your saying with this, that they should be able to get one out of this situation. This isn't "putting words into your mouth" this is pointing out the logical conclusion of your words. This is saying they should be able to get one out (a reward) if they play well regardless of the previous mess up to be in the basement. You are infering a reward, you just may not be able to see it. This is not some false dichotomy or strawman, so stop trying to pivot from this and adress what you actually said. If you didn't mean what you said here, then that's fine. Just say it. I'll move on to different points. But don't sit there on some high horse and try and pivot away from it. Accept you were either wrong or misspoke and I'll drop the point..

    A final point of contention, you said "regardless if I like it or not" that they will get one escape if they play correctly. Well in that case the killer played correctly, ensuring he got both kills and therefore there is nothing wrong with what he did. He just played it better than they did and punished their mistakes. What he did has as much outplay as their choice of action if he walked up and swung at one of them. So neither of them are in the wrong then.

    Maybe rather than sitting there and spouting insults and hollow words, think your posts through and look at the context of a discussion. This will help clear up these sorts of things in the future.

    So when you bring up a point about one of my posts, Context doesn't matter is what you have essentially said here.

    I thought you just didn't understand or were confused, however now I just see you are dishonest and fallacious. This is just a asserted strawman.

    I was in a discussion, in which you brought up a point opposing something I said. I then said where you had said this thing, and how in the context of the discussion this is what that means. Maybe you should be more precise or just not quote something I've said and instead just @ me.

    If you left this out, I would understand you better. I understand the last part, it seems you are not happy about me quoting you? The reason we quote, is because it is important to talk about what the person is saying. This is why you likely don't quote me, because you like to assert X, Y, and Z, instead of using my entire conversation with you and quoting it bit by bit.

    I like to know exactly what you are talking about, and I like people who read this to know exactly what I am replying to including yourself so its organized. Anyone who reads this should, at least in theory, be able to read what I have quoted and understand your argument, then read my reply to it and understand my argument and lastly evaluate for themselves, what is and isn't reasonable. Another reason hence we don't assert things as it makes you unreasonable. :P

    That would mean you have a point outside of the discussion I was previously having with you. But unless words have no meaning in your eyes or you have a blatant disregard of how your words are interpreted and how you should put fourth points that are outside of the discussion we were having. Or you just don't care to read context.

    I said X, and that I disagree with Y. Whatever you said to the other comment, and whoever commented and whatever they commented is completely irrelevant. Scroll up and reread if you don't understand why. If you did read it, and are still confused, then I can't help you.

    You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.

    Either way it's obvious you care not for fruitful discussion with the quote "disingenuous" and "telling a child what sight is" that you just believe that you have to be right and your impossible to reason with and are being overly defencive.

    No, I am being completely reasonable. Again, this is why I have quoted everything you have said, and will do so to reply to it. I don't care if I have to repeat myself 100 times, this is a forum, and conversation/debate is a hobby to me.

    Again, the reason you are being disingenuous is for reasons I don't understand, however try replying to what I am saying instead of going on a tangent and maybe the conversation will be "fruitful".

    Continuing to make fallacious attempts to win this conversation will prove futile, I can assure you that.

    This discussion was about whether or not standing on top of the stairs here was a good thing, and whether you should be allowed to do it.

    No it wasn't, and no it wasn't, and no it wasn't. I repeating that out loud laughing as I could not even phantom how you got so lost of track.

    I made a few comments with the base decision of that person had already messed up to be in the basement, so why should they then be able to disregard such and get out.

    I don't think they should, but that is the game we play.

    That killer could have been just ensuring that he didn't mess up and let the 2 people out (only one person probably would've escaped). You then quoted me saying a bunch of things as a contention to my point (from what I can tell at least, unless words have no meaning) and one of these being , and I will quote for the third time, "if survivors play correctly you will only down one".

    Yup, finally you got something correct, that is what I said. You WILL only down one, not because you should, not because you want to but because that is the best you can do if the survivors play best regardless if you play best as well in the killers role in that situation as said before.

    Your argument is funny, is like someone said "Well if someone killed someone, then they should be killed", and then I said "Well no, thats not how it works because they're could of been a good reason for why they did so." and then you turn around and go "SEE, you are saying that they won't die when clearly they will!". That is how broken your reasoning is. Just stick to quoting me please, as it will help us both in the long run.

    I am so confused why you decided to quote me here and actually give my statement rather then just assert "SEE, you clearly are saying X".

    So let's look at the situation again. These survivors have already messed up to be in the basement, the last place they want to be. And your saying with this, that they should be able to get one out of this situation. 

    Yes, because that is how the game works in current day with both the survivor and killer's roles. Again, totally regardless of my opinion on the topic, that is what happens. I don't like hunters shooting animals for fun, but regardless of my opinion it happens.


    This isn't "putting words into your mouth" this is pointing out the logical conclusion of your words. This is saying they should be able to get one out (a reward) if they play well regardless of the previous mess up to be in the basement.

    No, no and no. This is where confusion comes from. Remove the "(a reward)" from it as it is not necessary. I would argue this is bad usage too because in that case most any action is a reward by definition but this is redundant.

    Just say the situation that has transpired because any small or major action is by normal definition a reward, hence you are just saying the same thing. IE: walking up the stairs is a reward, but not a achievement. This is why I dislike that word because its too broad. Walking up stairs is a reward as it allows you to get upstairs, even in real life not even from the games basement.

    My point is, that word left me confused because normally people use that word with something else, IE: She got first place in the race and was rewarded a gold medal.

    To get back on track, your wording poisons the well. Its not that they should be able to get out, they CAN and WILL get out. If someone is shot, they SHOULD die (assuming its somewhere critical), if someone gets disintegrated they CAN AND WILL die. When you say should as well in the way you said it, it seems as if I am saying they "SHOULD" or, that I want that outcome when its just a objective fact under best play that wouldn't be too hard to do.

    You are infering a reward, you just may not be able to see it. This is not some false dichotomy or strawman, so stop trying to pivot from this and adress what you actually said. If you didn't mean what you said here, then that's fine. Just say it. I'll move on to different points. But don't sit there on some high horse and try and pivot away from it. Accept you were either wrong or misspoke and I'll drop the point..

    How could I infer a reward? That doesn't even make sense? I didn't cite any evidence for a reward neither did I bring one up??? What is your definition for "infer" as I think you mean assert which would be equally wrong as I have not even again brought a reward up in any regards. Unless you mean the loose definition and in that case just use the situation as it is much easier to contemplate then a generalization in the form of word.

    Anyway, it was both of those fallacies for the reasons mentioned before. Stop ignoring what I am saying and actually address the reasons I am saying something you said is both a false dichotomy and strawman and unless you are going to address this point properly that stands as well as EVERYTHING I have said that you have not brought up that we have talked about in our conversation.

    I have took no arrogant stance at all hence why I am trying to reason with you, so either you don't understand the meaning of what I have said or you yet again have asserted something that is not true.

    A final point of contention, you said "regardless if I like it or not" that they will get one escape if they play correctly. Well in that case the killer played correctly, ensuring he got both kills and therefore there is nothing wrong with what he did. He just played it better than they did and punished their mistakes. What he did has as much outplay as their choice of action if he walked up and swung at one of them. So neither of them are in the wrong then.

    This doesn't even make sense, one will escape regardless of if I like it or not because the game is not balanced. I think you do not understand what I am saying because you don't listen.

    If the killer played correctly he would as well only have one downed. Again, if both sides play best this is the outcome that will happen. I don't know why you can't comprehend what I am saying.

    if you are 7 feet from someone who is attempting to shoot you while you are in a open field, and they and you understand what you both are doing. If you both correctly make every action, the end result is you are dying if they are dead set on killing you. This would be you made every correct move to minimize the harm inflicted to you, and if they made every correct move to maximize zed harm.

    Or if the killer in the game made every correct move to try his hardest to play most optimally and down both of you, and the survivors made ever correct move to stop this from happening because of the objective facts of the situations.

    With the first example you will always die because of the fact the situation is not balanced toward your favor, and you can't do anything to stop the outcome due to this.

    Same with the killer in this situation, the game is balanced towards the survivors favor in the sense that they can stop you from getting both of them due to the game mechanics. I specify the ending of this, as even one survivor is not really favorable for the survivors its just more favorable then both going down.

    Maybe rather than sitting there and spouting insults and hollow words, think your posts through and look at the context of a discussion. This will help clear up these sorts of things in the future.

    As far as I am aware, I have no insult you and you haven't either. I don't know what the definition of a hollow word is, however ironically I reckon you should take this advice more because otherwise you wouldn't be in this situation you are in and would clear up the best objective reply to me as to not take this issue on for week(s) of time.

    in Nobody likes a short match... Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175393#Comment_2175393

    Oh bestie, the fact that you think I have failed to comprehend any of your rhetoric is beyond me. I'm done speaking with you and if you think that's because I'm an idiot I really, really do not care. Think whatever you need to think to feel better about yourself. Have a pleasant mother's day.

    I think its more likely that you realize you can't defend your position. I have no qualms about your intellect, nor did I bring it up.

    You indirectly talking about me, and asserting view points about me that are false maybe even slanderous to a slight degree says you aren't done though and that you do care? Why else would you continue?

    In any case, thank you. :) I hope you have a good mothers day as well. Although I am not a mom... but at least I still have one. That is much more then what some people have so it is nice we have a day to celebrate Moms and Fathers.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2174513#Comment_2174513

    My hero. Also yeah, just troll this guy because he thinks writing forum posts like he just took his first honors English course somehow makes his opinion better than anybody else’s. I find it funny that somebody would take these forums that seriously.

    Totally missed this, that is funny.

    No, I am doing my best to represent the facts of the situation regardless of my opinion. That is what you fail to comprehend.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Toblerone007 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2174273#Comment_2174273

    It was a rhetorical question and you wrote an essay.

    You don't need to teach me how to track survivors lol I have played this game for years. Look at my post history. I know my stuff. The 'situational' situation to use lucky break + iron will on the ptb is to take a hit and break los. How the hell are you hearing footsteps when the survivor has sprinted away not leaving any trail. Footsteps are well out of range. That's not very situational I mean just watch some current ptb clips. Good survivors against good killer it's a nutty perk combination. I just found out they're already nerfing it. I rest my case.

    Oh and good luck getting your PhD in philosophy. You and Mr. Moundshroud make a force to be reckoned with it seems. ahahaha

    Phrase of the day is: "You're objectively wrong." Not just wrong. Objectively wrong.

    Damn I sound like an authoritarian.

    It was a rhetorical question and you wrote an essay.


    You don't need to teach me how to track survivors lol I have played this game for years. Look at my post history. I know my stuff. The 'situational' situation to use lucky break + iron will on the ptb is to take a hit and break los. How the hell are you hearing footsteps when the survivor has sprinted away not leaving any trail. Footsteps are well out of range. That's not very situational I mean just watch some current ptb clips. Good survivors against good killer it's a nutty perk combination. I just found out they're already nerfing it. I rest my case.

    Clearly not, I was specifically talking about in the situation of Lucky Break/Iron Wlil. They're are alot of outcomes. Sarcasm is not obvious in text either, so I have no reason to assume that when you outright asked the questions.

    In any case, I have listed ways you can react to this specific thing, the reasons its situational is because of you have to react to the what the survivor is doing. You clearly will hear them if they are near you, if they run then no you won't but if you payed attention you get a rough idea of they're location.

    As said before, you don't even have to chase them because you already got a hit in. Assuming they are nerfing it, I don't care. My original stand point still remains, you are talking about devs who let issues persist for years, and some to this day. Them nerfing perks that don't affect me is just another pointless change.

    Oh and good luck getting your PhD in philosophy. You and Mr. Moundshroud make a force to be reckoned with it seems. ahahaha

    Ok? I am sorry you have trouble understanding what we are talking about. In fact, what you said made no sense due to the fact that statement only applied to the first paragraph he and I wrote as it was dropped entirely. At this point I don't think you understand what that is.

    Phrase of the day is: "You're objectively wrong." Not just wrong. Objectively wrong.

    I laughed when you tried to get a "GOTTEM" on this, because you look dense without realizing it. I specified objective wrong as you can be subjectively wrong.

    As said before, we have to come to a agreement on a goal. If we can never do that then everyone is always going to be subjectively right or wrong. However, if we have goal then you can be objectively wrong or right. If someone thinks that X is true, for no reason, we can look at the claim and see if they are objectively right or wrong by these means. However, something like opinions you can always be subjectively correct about, for the fact it is subjective and therefore not objective hence why someone could be subjectively wrong.

    This is logic 101 man.

    Damn I sound like an authoritarian.

    Not really, you are just dishonest it would seem. In any case, I don't mind. I like our conversation. At least you are trying, albeit not very hard.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2174206#Comment_2174206

    This guy just wants to argue with people and insist he is correct. I promise you, people this dense aren’t worth your time. But I did have a good laugh at his attempts LMAO.

    So dishonest, why do you try at this point?

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Moundshroud said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2174243#Comment_2174243

    And that is where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think there is an objective goal to Dead by Daylight. It is a PvP game with large selection of Perks for both roles (Killer and Survivor), maps with a large amount of variation both within and without, and Killers whose powers set them apart. My understanding of "Meta" is something outside the immersion of the game, i.e. what Players (of both roles) THINK are the best builds. It is a type of logic that breaks the fourth wall. It is also born in no small part of the "hive mind," perhaps more so than actual application and efficiency. In other words, perception become reality when it comes to what the so-called community think is "Meta."

    My argument probably does tend to get a bit more philosophical than applied science, but what I'm suggesting is the goal (and current trend) is for all Perks to have some innate value, and that the DEV would prefer that none of them are so potent as to be clearly Meta. Does that make sense? They want diversity, and for more Perks to be used. Thus, if one Perk shows up in their statistics as being used to the exclusion of all others, they take nerfing or reworking it into consideration. In other words, what is the point of having all these different Perks if only a few get used? The goal is to make it so that they all have some value and that more (if not all of them) do get used.

    But I digress; let's get back to that objective goal issue. There are a lot of goals available and officially there are no win conditions to this game. That makes it hard to nail down an objective goal, and I suspect they did that on purpose too. Ostensibly Survivors want to survive and Killers want to kill, but achieving those mutually exclusive goals depends a great deal on the strengths and weaknesses of individual Players and the random elements (maps, spawns, etc.) that apply. Some people are are great Loopers, not just because they practice (although that is certainly key) but because they have a knack for it. Some people are better at evasion, being immersed and hard to find. The list is fairly exhaustive because different people play for different reasons too. Are they trying to earn Blood Points, Pips, or just do the basic kill or escape? Dead by Daylight isn't just spaghetti code, it is spaghetti objectives.

    What I'm stating is that the "Meta" is a delusion, group think run amok. Certain Perks, play styles, tactics, strategies, builds, etc. become commonplace but it doesn't mean they are actually the strongest. It could simply be that people bought into what others where selling, and played specific things more. More play means more practice. More practice means better results. The feedback loop kicks in and more people say, "you need to take this!" I don't buy into all that; I never have. I was told that Myers isn't competitive in the Red Ranks, and yet I play him almost exclusively and I do just fine there. I was told Spooky Myers (also called Jump Scare) isn't functional outside of the indoor maps, particularly at the Red Ranks, but I find I can make him work. I've been told I have to pay Spirit or Nurse, yadda... yadda... yadda... and yet I have found that to not be the case. I don't believe I'm exceptional or have any more natural talent than anyone else. To the contrary, I'm just competitive and make my own way. Do you see my point?

    I've played against SWF with the Meta Builds and all the supposed advantages and killed them to a man. I've played against Red Rank Solos with off the wall builds where every single one of them escaped. When that happens it is like getting kicked in the groin, hard. Pride is more tender than the family jewels in my case. What I'm saying is the goal should be for individual Players to build for their individual strengths and personal style. No Perk should be so important that people feel it is an auto-include simply because they are playing Dead by Daylight. They should be choosing them because those Perks are auto-include based on their own ability. I think biodiversity in nature is good, and I think diversity in builds is good for the game. Unlike a lot of people, I like maps that make people play against type, that "The Game" is crazy full of pallets but doesn't have many vaults. I like that Hawkins doesn't have many safe pallets but is chock full of vaults and non-standard options to gain and lose elevation. I love the new Corn Fields because the massive amount of terrain blocking LOS can't be fought the same way. These are good things because they are BAD for the very notion of Meta.

    We aren't playing Chess. We shouldn't want to be playing Chess when we come here. I'm not looking for balance in so much as I'm looking for a challenge. The more structured the game, the more Meta it becomes. That is why Chess can be broken down into specific openings and gambits and at a certain point is just a ritual dance. It becomes too reliable, too predictable, and boring. So to me, the more Meta things appear to get, the sicker the game is becoming. The less predictable the builds and choices, the healthier the game.

    And that is where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think there is an objective goal to Dead by Daylight. It is a PvP game with large selection of Perks for both roles (Killer and Survivor), maps with a large amount of variation both within and without, and Killers whose powers set them apart.

    That is absurd, if you are playing a game with no goal in mind, what's the point to play it? As well as no goal is objective, I don't think I have said they're is one? You have a subjective goal with objective bests to suit zed goal.

    I reread what I have said and can not find me stating there is a objective goal? If I have it was a mistake and I retract that statement because it doesn't make sense but I could of accidently said that in thought, I do not think I have however.

    My understanding of "Meta" is something outside the immersion of the game, i.e. what Players (of both roles) THINK are the best builds. It is a type of logic that breaks the fourth wall. It is also born in no small part of the "hive mind," perhaps more so than actual application and efficiency. In other words, perception become reality when it comes to what the so-called community think is "Meta."

    Well subjective understanding aren't logical for comparison of what is and isn't. If I concede that is what "meta" means, then we are talking about subjectivity to a unusually high degree. In that case, I could say Meg is meta over Dwight because I feel like it. So I must reject this premise as it is too loose, I will however keep this in mind but your thermology is drastically different I reckon to most people using the word "meta". Its like if someone wanted to talk about "Oranges" but every time they brought it up they meant Chicken.

    My argument probably does tend to get a bit more philosophical than applied science, but what I'm suggesting is the goal (and current trend) is for all Perks to have some innate value, and that the DEV would prefer that none of them are so potent as to be clearly Meta.

    This is good actually, I agree with this sentimate. [Continued in next paragraph]

    Does that make sense? They want diversity, and for more Perks to be used. Thus, if one Perk shows up in their statistics as being used to the exclusion of all others, they take nerfing or reworking it into consideration. In other words, what is the point of having all these different Perks if only a few get used? The goal is to make it so that they all have some value and that more (if not all of them) do get used.

    With that being said, why is this a focus however? I mean we can't really do anything to influence the devs to do anything, and we aren't devs ourself. Shouldn't we just stay in the Playerbase role, and just point how what is and isn't good as objectively AND fair as possible? This is still something I agree with, its just, I don't think I can do anything about it and therefore am not moralized to try to do my absolute hardest to come up with these drastic and time consuming ideas that might just be ignored by the devs.

    But I digress; let's get back to that objective goal issue. There are a lot of goals available and officially there are no win conditions to this game. That makes it hard to nail down an objective goal, and I suspect they did that on purpose too. Ostensibly Survivors want to survive and Killers want to kill, but achieving those mutually exclusive goals depends a great deal on the strengths and weaknesses of individual Players and the random elements (maps, spawns, etc.) that apply. Some people are are great Loopers, not just because they practice (although that is certainly key) but because they have a knack for it. Some people are better at evasion, being immersed and hard to find. The list is fairly exhaustive because different people play for different reasons too. Are they trying to earn Blood Points, Pips, or just do the basic kill or escape? Dead by Daylight isn't just spaghetti code, it is spaghetti objectives.

    Digression to the main topic would be most preferable. I still am not convinced they're is a "objective goal", I can't really even phantom that. They're must be a goal you agree on, and then objective actions for that goal to complete it.

    For example, what is morality? We can't just say it is our subjective outlook because some people would have conflicting morals. A murder will not be to keen on a normal persons idea of normal. So we have to say that morality is "the wellness of life" as it is commonly described by those in the atheist circle, I mean some figures in it specifically who I agree this is a sound definition for. Then and only then objectively would murder be wrong. Unfortunately the goal is still subjective, however it is accepted by the majority and is deemed moral because it reduces general pain which is a subjective want but still, we subjectively can use the agreement of a goal to come to objective actions.

    What I'm stating is that the "Meta" is a delusion, group think run amok. Certain Perks, play styles, tactics, strategies, builds, etc. become commonplace but it doesn't mean they are actually the strongest. It could simply be that people bought into what others where selling, and played specific things more. More play means more practice. More practice means better results. The feedback loop kicks in and more people say, "you need to take this!" I don't buy into all that; I never have. I was told that Myers isn't competitive in the Red Ranks, and yet I play him almost exclusively and I do just fine there. I was told Spooky Myers (also called Jump Scare) isn't functional outside of the indoor maps, particularly at the Red Ranks, but I find I can make him work. I've been told I have to pay Spirit or Nurse, yadda... yadda... yadda... and yet I have found that to not be the case. I don't believe I'm exceptional or have any more natural talent than anyone else. To the contrary, I'm just competitive and make my own way. Do you see my point?

    Its only a delusion of the group IF it is not based on objectivity towards a goal. IF someone said X and it turns out wrong 99% of the time, the person was either objectively wrong, OR you were mistaken and they meant something else. In any case, doing X and it working would be by definition the objective outcome of whatever it was you wanted. Now if they said X and they mostly were correct, then they are still correct as just because something works rarely doesn't mean it is the best solution. You have a chance to survive a gunshot to the head, however that doesn't mean it is a good idea to get shot in the head.

    I've played against SWF with the Meta Builds and all the supposed advantages and killed them to a man.

    Then you either are using a superior strategy that no one but you knows, or they're was some other issue in the way be it mistakes or they were messing around, unless it is the first case then just because this happens time to time that doesn't make it normal nor would we consider this the "bully squad" most mean when they say "SWF".

    I've played against Red Rank Solos with off the wall builds where every single one of them escaped. When that happens it is like getting kicked in the groin, hard. Pride is more tender than the family jewels in my case.

    Lmao.

    What I'm saying is the goal should be for individual Players to build for their individual strengths and personal style.

    I agree with this, its a good goal to have.

    No Perk should be so important that people feel it is an auto-include simply because they are playing Dead by Daylight. They should be choosing them because those Perks are auto-include based on their own ability.

    I would agree with this as well, but unfortunately this is not where the game is at the moment. Currently survivors do not even need perks to help them if they are good at the game due to its unfairness, so killers will always feel that they need certain perks.

    They're also is the major issue of a BP grind, so players think they need BBQ or We're Gunna Live Forever (Myself included) otherwise it takes too long to get stuff on a new account, ect.

    I think biodiversity in nature is good, and I think diversity in builds is good for the game.

    We'll I mean, these are two very different things lmao. For life, it is necessary for survival. I think I see what you mean however, but it is not always good for games.

    Diversity is one tool companys use to funnel money out of people for example, IE Loot boxes.

    Unlike a lot of people, I like maps that make people play against type, that "The Game" is crazy full of pallets but doesn't have many vaults. I like that Hawkins doesn't have many safe pallets but is chock full of vaults and non-standard options to gain and lose elevation. I love the new Corn Fields because the massive amount of terrain blocking LOS can't be fought the same way. These are good things because they are BAD for the very notion of Meta.

    I agree completely that these are good things, as they reduce the imbalance in that game. With that being said, I don't really think they stop meta perks like Deadhard though as it can be used anywhere, and if perks like Lithe would of become more useless like Balanced Landing in modern time people will just use like perks. They would have to nerf every major issue perk in the game at once for they're to be any real change.

    We aren't playing Chess. We shouldn't want to be playing Chess when we come here. I'm not looking for balance in so much as I'm looking for a challenge. The more structured the game, the more Meta it becomes. That is why Chess can be broken down into specific openings and gambits and at a certain point is just a ritual dance. It becomes too reliable, too predictable, and boring. So to me, the more Meta things appear to get, the sicker the game is becoming. The less predictable the builds and choices, the healthier the game.

    I disagree with this actually, while I agree we should not come to dbd for chess as they are two different games. I am not to happy about the idea of losing balance for challenge. A game in which you die instantly off the bat is not fun just because it is more challenging to live.

    If you mean structured by complicated, then yes that is how logic works.

    Chess can not be easy to break down at all, not for a human at least. There are 1,327 openings alone, and with only five moves in each position there is about 4, 897,256 move per, with every move this number multiplies by quite the amount, and this is not talking about variation of moves either. I don't find it predictable nor boring either because if that were the case I would draw every game, and everyone would draw as well because you start out at near equal position.

    I completely disagree with making things more complex, in fact the more simpler things at a games core the better the game typically is. Games with incredibly complex mechanics will only focus on that one mechanic or it becomes too overbearing. So you are objectively wrong here actually. Great example is CSGO, while it doesn't have anything but a few simple mechanics, they can be complicated but they're done so well that its not annoying to use them.

    This is the main issue with Dead By Daylight, they have a game that they haven't ironed out, and they still add stuff to it. This is why issues like new killers such as the Trickster get fixed years down the road and remain bad in the mean time. I truthfully believe if we want what you proposed a few paragraphs ago, they would have to stop adding stuff and start ironing stuff. I highly doubt that is going to happen however, they have to make money some how and I don't think they market this game for old players, but new players, There is a reason why they always are asking about cosmetic items, and why they are focusing on overhauling visual graphics then focusing on the well known issues in the game like Nurse's Blinks sometime phantom blinking in place, or trapper's addons removing every game and having to readd them manually.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Toblerone007 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2174151#Comment_2174151

    How though? How do you track a survivor that has no scratch marks, no blood and no grunts. Stridor spirit maybe and a good prediction on nurse. Have you seen the gameplay on the PTB?

    This isn't your thread and you've argued against everybody in this thread aha.

    You say you rarely argue for survivor because you main killer. That's all well and good but look how quickly you dismissed what I said about Fixated. Hell you didn't even address it. You just repeated yourself.

    The OP's question was is DS still meta. I'm saying no because it's weaker than these perks I aformentioned when it used to be up the top.

    How though? How do you track a survivor that has no scratch marks, no blood and no grunts. Stridor spirit maybe and a good prediction on nurse. Have you seen the gameplay on the PTB?

    This is a fair question, it entirely situational though... its like trying to explain how to play a killer.

    I can point to strats though I typically employ when I am unsure where a survivor.


    • Sound Ques

    This is a major one, just because the survivors are quiet doesn't mean anything to me and I am increasingly aware to these specific survivors after spotting them due to environmental ques. It is incredibly obvious a survivor is near when you hear *THOMB THOMB THOMB* on the floor tiles, or grass move which you will hear if a survivor is near very often to such a degree now that I subconsciously do it.

    • Past Experience

    I mean survivors will only do X amount of things, most of the time it is safe to pick two outcomes of what a survivor does and then go ahead with that as then its very likely you will be right and find them or you will be wrong and know where they are most likely. After a while you understand that survivors will try to prioritize safe areas, and stay far away from dead areas.

    • Assumptions

    This is a really big one really, I think a better word would be predictions but really you gotta pay attention to the survivor you vs. IF they are a "Runner" then you can likely just keep following they're likely position, you have a rough estimate of they're position and they can only be in so many areas so you can quickly pin down the area for these survivors.

    If they are an aggressive type you know they likely remain near you somewhere trying to get cheeky plays, or trying to get you to walk past them as a diversion tactic.

    IF you are using Whispers this is even easier as you'd know they are in your terror radius and this is how I use to practice prediction. You just get a knack for it, same way you just get a knack for when to throw your hatchets as a Huntress or where to blink as a Nurse.

    • Do you really want to though?

    I mean really though? If you lost a survivor after hitting them do you even care to find them? You already got the reward, a hit, and they now need to go heal. If you are seriously that unsure (which is unlikely unless you weren't paying attention) where they are that you don't know at all? If so why try to look at them? Just find the people on gens, chase them and force the one to heal or later be a target if they don't heal. You gain more time, and if you are using a very strong killer you likely gain more pressure to.

    This isn't your thread and you've argued against everybody in this thread aha.

    Ok? I normally, do. This is a forum, conversations and arguments are a given... why else would you be on a forum?? All this proves is I have disagreed with everyone.

    You say you rarely argue for survivor because you main killer. That's all well and good but look how quickly you dismissed what I said about Fixated. Hell you didn't even address it. You just repeated yourself.

    Yhea because you said the same thing really in different wording. Its not good for the reasons gave and you haven't disproved what I said so why would I do anything other the repeat myself?

    The OP's question was is DS still meta. I'm saying no because it's weaker than these perks I aformentioned when it used to be up the top.

    Right, and I am saying yes because you are objectively wrong as it give an extra guaranteed life, giving even more time for the survivors to do gens when the gen time is already low with the added benefit of a chance to get out of sticky situations like being put in basement vs a bubba, or being downed after all gens are done right outside of exit gate.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Moundshroud said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173862#Comment_2173862

    I disagree; there is another status quo that you are disregarding, and I submit is it the one that we are far more likely to achieve. Perfect balance is impossible, something to strive for but one must accept that it is a Utopian pipe dream. What we can achieve is enough variation in Killers, Maps, random spawn, and Perks that you can gain advantages, but different Builds compliment different Players and situations more. For example, when I play Survivor I do not run DS (never cared for it much), Dead Hard (also don't care for it), nor do I run any other Exhaustion Perk regularly.

    My most common Survivor Build is:

    Calm Spirit, Spine Chill, Iron Will, and a Wildcard (whatever Perk I think compliments the job I mean to take on in the group).

    *Sometimes I take on Deliverance, Self Care, Lucky Break, Saboteur, etc. That fourth slot varies a lot. Looking at my base Build you would think I'm an "immersion" style Player who hides all the time. I'm not; I actually spend my time about 50/50 either doing Generators and safe rescues versus Looping. I don't take the so-called Meta Perks for Looping because they don't do that much. I've found that effective Looping is 90% the Player and while getting a 2nd Chance now and then was nice, it wasn't worth the Perk slot to me. So, I either get away up front or I don't. I rely on my peers to come save me and hopefully return the favors I do them.

    Some would say that Calm Spirit, Spine Chill, and Iron Will are Meta Perks now. They have certainly improved in popularity. I can remember when people used to ask me why I'm wasting a slot of Calm Spirit. :) They don't ask that anymore so I guess word got around. My point is that I made real trade offs to find the list that suits my particular type of play best. There are people who Loop 100% of the time and for them Dead Hard, Sprint Burst, Lithe, Balanced Landing, and DS are certainly stronger choices. The ideal status quo we want is for there to be Perks that aren't Meta for the game overall, but Meta for specific Players.

    I disagree; there is another status quo that you are disregarding, and I submit is it the one that we are far more likely to achieve. Perfect balance is impossible, something to strive for but one must accept that it is a Utopian pipe dream. What we can achieve is enough variation in Killers, Maps, random spawn, and Perks that you can gain advantages, but different Builds compliment different Players and situations more. For example, when I play Survivor I do not run DS (never cared for it much), Dead Hard (also don't care for it), nor do I run any other Exhaustion Perk regularly.

    Oddly, you started with a fair point however upon thinking about it I realize what you said didn't make sense. Is it not that this is an "Utopian pipe dream", it is just balance. Your argument is like perfection vs "perfection". Sure, one is possible, and one not humanly possible, however commonly we refer to the humanly variation because to even contemplate a "perfect" or something being "balanced" breaks reason. This is exactly why I specifically stated they're must always be a meta regardless of how much more advantageous, they're objectively WILL be a meta for they're not to be you must break logic.

    *Sometimes I take on Deliverance, Self Care, Lucky Break, Saboteur, etc. That fourth slot varies a lot. Looking at my base Build you would think I'm an "immersion" style Player who hides all the time. I'm not; I actually spend my time about 50/50 either doing Generators and safe rescues versus Looping. I don't take the so-called Meta Perks for Looping because they don't do that much. I've found that effective Looping is 90% the Player and while getting a 2nd Chance now and then was nice, it wasn't worth the Perk slot to me. So, I either get away up front or I don't. I rely on my peers to come save me and hopefully return the favors I do them.

    The "looping perks", I am not sure what you are talking about specifically. I believe Dead Hard, ect and those however. IF that is the case you are just objectively wrong, how would they not help? They outright extend chase more then normal, in many a case even giving you a second life.

    The base kit is surely strong enough, so its not that you are using different perks that help you more. Its just you have only proved to yourself that you don't really need perks as a Survivor due to how strong the Survivor base kit is. This is not really news to me. In any case, personal preference plays no role in objective truths.

    Some would say that Calm Spirit, Spine Chill, and Iron Will are Meta Perks now. They have certainly improved in popularity. I can remember when people used to ask me why I'm wasting a slot of Calm Spirit. :) They don't ask that anymore so I guess word got around. My point is that I made real trade offs to find the list that suits my particular type of play best. There are people who Loop 100% of the time and for them Dead Hard, Sprint Burst, Lithe, Balanced Landing, and DS are certainly stronger choices. The ideal status quo we want is for there to be Perks that aren't Meta for the game overall, but Meta for specific Players.

    You've gotten very... philosophical, with this last part.

    I've done my absolute best to reply to you with grand consideration as I don't believe you are being dishonest and in doing so I think I understand you. I however do think they're is problems with your reasoning.

    Firstly, you are trying to treat meta as a conception subjectively and that hurts to think about, I think you just are either using a VERY loose definition for the word "meta" or you mean to use a different word all together. I would define "Meta", as the strongest X things in a game (in this conversation), that lead to the common goal of winning and/or a outcome that is most preferable to a goal similar. I find this is a easy way determining if something is objectively meta or not.

    For example, in Chess they're are objectively "meta" moves. They can be the difference between a pawn, or a queen but in any case, these moves typically end up with the computer winning 100% of the time vs even the best humans. Moves get so accurate that 0.X material gain is a significant change in a game where whole values are the tool for calculation in any gave situation in which you are winning or losing.

    Therefore if you use a perk like Dead Hard, you objectively must be using a "meta" perk as if you are chased or not your main goal is Gens and you can only do them if you are not downed/killed. So with that logic regardless of play or situation, an extra life would help much more to this goal then something like Calm spirit that allows mind games because Calm Sprit regardless of playstyle does not directly contribute to chase and therefore is not as good as Deadhard as it does not guarantee extra lives based on its very nature nor is it directly guaranteed to contribute to the goal of "winning".

    You can apply this reasoning to literally anything in anything, every perk in a game, the objective best way to even do small tasks like picking something off the floor. Sure, a old man using a stick might be much easier for him to pick up something on the floor, and you can consider that his personal "meta" for picking things off the floor, however it is not THE meta way to pick up things if we assume it takes him 5 seconds to do that but a human without any handicap, it would take 3 seconds without a stick. I hope that makes you see what I mean?

    They're always must be a objective goal if we can agree on the subjective ruleset(s)/wanted outcomes.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Toblerone007 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2174013#Comment_2174013

    It was in a descending order. I'd say meta is being the most strong and versatile which in turn makes it popular. BT and IW topping this. Kindred for solo q comes to mind too.

    I threw fixated in because since its buff its ability to use in chase is really good. Like really really good. You can fake a window being an incorrect decision and still have enough time to setup a fast vault and have the killer not get the hit anyway.

    Lucky Break probably going to be nerfed because it's too good. Anyone can escape the killer using this.

    Substitute them for Adrenaline and Dead Hard then. Just threw in some other perks than the obvious.

    I'd say meta is being the most strong and versatile which in turn makes it popular.

    Hm, I agree with the definition, however how are those perks listed before versatile, and for some of them strong?

    I threw fixated in because since its buff its ability to use in chase is really good. Like really really good. You can fake a window being an incorrect decision and still have enough time to setup a fast vault and have the killer not get the hit anyway.

    It is too gimmicky though?

    Lucky Break probably going to be nerfed because it's too good. Anyone can escape the killer using this.

    I strongly disagree with this sentiment, and I main killer and rarely argue for Survivor. Remember, they're are perks that literally give you a extra live in chase, I think it is too gimmicky and that a killer who understands the game will easily find survivors that are using these perks.

    Substitute them for Adrenaline and Dead Hard then. Just threw in some other perks than the obvious.

    Those are meta too though?

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Toblerone007 said:

    It's not meta. It's significantly weaker now and there are much better alternatives that are both more versatile and difficult for the killer to deal with.

    BT, IW, Lucky Break and Fixated. All far outclass DS imo.

    What do you classify exactly when you say "meta"? BT isn't even a chase perk, its a hook perk, nor is Fixated, nor is Lucky Break.

    Out of what you just said, Borrowed Time, and Iron Will are the only ones that most could consider meta.

    Iron will because it consistently will help you vs some of the best killers, and allows for a lot of mind game protentional.

    Borrowed Time because it gives a extra life off hook for a few seconds, extending chase if killer is near.

    With that being said Fixated is just as gimmicky as Lucky Break, both being perks not directly used for chase but used to avoid it, these can't be considered meta because they're is no reason a survivor should use these perks if they're looking for the best builds or if they are an ok survivor due to how strong most loops are and the survivors base kit being so great.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173939#Comment_2173939

    Hmm I didn't know you could use two red herrings in one survivor loadout!

    Red herring.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173930#Comment_2173930

    Omg I love those perks :p

    A red herring for a red herring. This is a first.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Orion said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173927#Comment_2173927

    If you're prone to making mistakes, you'll get to use DS long before the 60 seconds are up.

    Nope, because again, loops are incredibly safe mostly and gen times are very short.

    Again, if you understand the loops, you don't need to be very good as a survivor. You just need to be able to space out your mistakes so you aren't punished for them harshly as they're are tools you can use and if used effectively you will do fine.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173913#Comment_2173913

    Bestie, let's leave it be. I'm taking the high road because you're skull is dense. Have a pleasant evening though!

    Deflection and a red herring.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Orion said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173912#Comment_2173912

    In which case you don't need DS. There are many more alternatives (killer is intoxicated, killer is being kicked in the genitals by their offspring, killer's keyboard is failing(, but the end result is the same: you either don't need DS, or you encountered something that needs to be fixed (i.e.: removed).

    Not at all, but if you do make any mistakes, then its really nice to have. Likely will save you if you do have it, if you were to continue these mistakes as you have a free life. A free mistake that you aren't being punished for.

    You know, like dead hard, instaheal medikits, ect.

    As long as you are even a ok survivor you can rely on your loops, and when you make a mistake as this meh survivor, your perks and items are here to make it better as long as you space out your mistakes.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @kate_best_girl said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173906#Comment_2173906

    Okay but I’m still the one who’s punished and depipped

    Yup, that is what happens when killers aren't happy as they're much weaker then survivors however you have a game in which the emblem system in balanced towards matches that last and a number of goals that can't normally be fulfilled due to this.

    (IE: Its incredibly hard to do chase AND gens as a survivor. So its not often you get both.)

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173872#Comment_2173872

    I would give a serious reply but it is obvious that YOU are the one who is bothered by my post. If I truly cared I'd go to the DBD survivor side of tik tok and get everyone to say how DS should be reverted to old DS and so on. I asked the forum a question, you answered something that sounded like a jebait because nearly nobody in this community would define lithe as meta. Sorry you can't see that. You sound extremely entitled in the way you speak, thinking that your opinion is superior so I decided to mess with you. Nothing more, nothing less, but I promise you that if I was butt-hurt over something in a video game like DBD I would visit a therapist, not the DBD forums.

    I read the first sentence before I realized this was just another red herring, reply to the argument or don't.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Orion said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173891#Comment_2173891

    If you have chases that last much longer than 60 seconds, then either the killer is bad (in which case you don't need DS), or you found an area that needs fixing (in which case you should report it).

    Or the survivor is playing properly with the base kit while not making mistakes, excluding perks and you aren't playing a killer that can disrupt them (IE: Nurse, Spirit)

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @kate_best_girl said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173878#Comment_2173878

    If you’re being chased directly off hook yes it is short. You don’t just stop getting tunneled after 60 seconds if a killer wants to tunnel they’ll tunnel you all match. Or it should at least pause while you’re in chase

    At that point you have to blame your teammate for not micromanaging hook states though...

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @kate_best_girl said:

    IMO they should remove the timer

    like it’s not anti tunnel if there’s an extremely short timer

    Lmao, then it would be stupidly overpowered. You would basically do just as well as giving the survivors an extra life after you are hooked.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173855#Comment_2173855

    It's because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I was asking about DS, not lithe. You're the only one implying anybody thinks less of me, may I remind you that this is a video game we're talking about, it's not that deep.


    It's because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I was asking about DS, not lithe.

    Ok if I don't know what I am talking about, then reply to what I said and give a valid counter argument instead of a red herring.

    More so, Regardless of what you directly asked, they're was a claim by a opposing party (IE: someone called you "Meta Survivor" according to you), and thus is justified as you are using some of the best perks in the game in different categories.

    With that said, I don't think using any meta is wrong either though. So the fact that you got so butt hurt about it, you decided to post what someone did and made a post just so people can agree with your line of thinking is beyond me. This is of course an assumption, one I would reckon entirely valid considering when I answered the question your hostile reply.

    You're the only one implying anybody thinks less of me, may I remind you that this is a video game we're talking about, it's not that deep.

    Clearly I was talking about "Earlier today I got called a meta survivor for using".

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Moundshroud said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/248511/can-ds-even-still-be-considered-meta

    I'll go you one further, should we care if it (or any) Perk is Meta. Ideally no Perk should be so good that it is Meta. That is the goal we should be striving to achieve. If DS is no longer so-called, Meta, I say good. :)

    Fair but this causes issues.

    All meta is (at least commonly) are the things in games, be it perks, or killers, or anything that is a core mechanism in games (least with this loose definition) that are much better then then most other perks, ect of its kind.

    So if there was not "meta", then the game would be completely balanced to such a degree that nothing will give any advantage.

    This of course will never happen, even if we rework every thing, there will always be a "meta", just instead you will have only certain things meta that weren't before. They're always MUST be an objective "meta" in a game. If they're isn't then it must defy logic, because then the game would need to be so perfectly balanced to the point of everything is not better then anything else.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173534#Comment_2173534

    stop jebaiting us saying lithe is meta compared to dead hard or sprint burst☠️☠️☠️ Bye

    This is exactly why the person who you were talking to likely thought less of you.

    Stop bsing people with questions you don't want answers to. Sorry that the facts of situations turned out not to be what you want to hear.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Pulsar said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173542#Comment_2173542

    Rank is used for matchmaking.

    I can try to @ one of the Mods to confirm.

    From my understanding, it tries to match you within X ranks of your current Rank and if it takes too long, it expands the potential Ranks.

    Hm ok, we'll at least that is cleared up.

    in Is this normal matchmaking? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @piggygooik said:

    I feel like they should be. If all killers were A-tier it would make rank 1 ( and comp) feel fresh. you wouldn't see BT or spirit every game. The only killer that really needs a nerf is spirit and that's with her lack of counterplay.

    Imagine seeing trickster in comp. I really do hope they buff weak killers and weak perks.

    Everything should me viable, if everything was A tier, then you are talking about a balanced game.

    in Should all perks and killers be A tier Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Trickstaaaaa said:

    The first match might be survivor with friends. But yeah the second one is a lack of killers in this game in high ranks. Not many killers above green. So they match you with the closest ranks.

    I wonder why they're is not many killers. :P

    in Is this normal matchmaking? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Pulsar said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173492#Comment_2173492

    Rank is used for matching currently. MMR was briefly tested twice and will be activated eventually.

    The issue is that there are very few Killers compared to Survivors, meaning the matchmaker will try to toss people who have been in queue the longest into a match, regardless of Rank.

    I do not believe that is accurate. Last I checked no one knows.

    It is possible that they have updated it.

    Assuming this is true however, rank is still useless. Its not valid for match making at all.

    in Is this normal matchmaking? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Saitamfed said:

    Well, there's a list:

    Stop rewarding survivors per mistake, that made them so reliant to those perks that they are not learning to play properly or better to say, they don't know what to do if you take that from them

    Stronger hex perks... needless to say totems are a high risk/high reward perks but at the moment, most of the hexes are high risk/low reward, Hex: Crowd Control as an example, the perks is nice but it is a hex so it needs something more to be worth taking...

    Buffing old perks... sometimes the perk is fine and devs just need to play with the numbers a little... I know they're scared to make them OP, but I think it's easier to give a big buff to certain perk and then nerf it than giving mini-buffs over the years... they're adding more work to themselves in that way and I am sure they already have a lot of work to do.

    Adding more breakable walls... they give more BP to killers and they create new ways to escape routes for survivors so it's a win-win situation.

    I agree with everything except that last part, I don't like the breakable walls mostly in the game already as it forces you to take time out of chase to break them, or forces you to go across the map to break them and if you don't break them it typically makes the loops significantly harder until you do.

    in What is your perfect dbd? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @GeneralV said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173493#Comment_2173493

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2173496#Comment_2173496

    It sure looks amazing, doesn't it? One of the treasures of the Dead by Daylight's past. Why did the devs decide that it was a good idea to remove them is beyond me.

    I would love to see this in-game again.

    Yhea, why didn't they just make the animation faster instead of removing it?

    in What is your perfect dbd? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @beached said:

    It goes without saying that old DS was simply unhealthy for the game. It was a pure minute of invincibility from being hooked no matter what you did. There is not a doubt in my mind or anybody else's (hopefully) that old DS was the most meta perk in the game.

    Earlier today I got called a meta survivor for using DS and I was running it with WGLF, we'll make it, and lithe. I could see being called a meta survivor if I had dead hard, iron will, DS, and unbreakable but that's just not the case. Even in solo queue I don't run builds like that.

    At the end of the day can DS even be considered meta anymore? In my eyes it is 60 seconds of stun protection granted that you're legitimately being tunneled by the killer. If not wanting to have a match where you get insta tunneled out and have no fun is meta, than I take no shame in being a meta survivor while running we'll make it and lithe.

    It goes without saying that old DS was simply unhealthy for the game. It was a pure minute of invincibility from being hooked no matter what you did. There is not a doubt in my mind or anybody else's (hopefully) that old DS was the most meta perk in the game.

    Right.

    Earlier today I got called a meta survivor for using DS and I was running it with WGLF, we'll make it, and lithe. I could see being called a meta survivor if I had dead hard, iron will, DS, and unbreakable but that's just not the case. Even in solo queue I don't run builds like that.

    All the perks you just listed are considered meta. These are all perks that every survivor runs as well.

    • Lithe

    This is literally a clutch/exhausted perk, perks so strong they have a game mechanic to limit them. Are you serious, or just trolling when you think this is not meta?

    • WGLF

    This is again, the strongest BP perk for Survivors man. It also allows you to get cheeky heals that aren't always possible on downed survivors due to 100% increase healing rate on them. Of course this is meta as well. (0_0)

    • We'll Make It

    This did take a hit after Borrowed Time's buff but it is still meta.

    Before this perk was arguable better then Borrowed time, as it allowed near instant heals off hook, and could be used in great effect with other perks and medikits, top that with the fact unlike old borrowed time it always would proc then you have a serious contender. Now, all of the but the last part applies as now Borrowed time instantly procs as well. So now the two are pretty even as they're both will be better or worse then the other situationally.


    At the end of the day can DS even be considered meta anymore? In my eyes it is 60 seconds of stun protection granted that you're legitimately being tunneled by the killer. If not wanting to have a match where you get insta tunneled out and have no fun is meta, than I take no shame in being a meta survivor while running we'll make it and lithe.

    Of course it is still meta, in fact I love being tunneled because that means you are the only one playing the game while everyone else is sitting they're playing loading bar simulator on a gen. In fact, DS will be outright game changing in alot of situations. DS is a Cluch perk as well.

    For reference, all gens can be done in less then 3 minutes, and all gens normally are done in roughly 5 - 10 depending on how good the survivors are and the killer. This is of course not accounting for the time survivors running too the gens, and also is assuming the survivors aren't doing dumb things and wasting time IE: healing when they're is no need too (Sorta redundant as you are talking about tunneling so I would assume no one is getting hit often), failing skill checks, ect.

    So it basically allow you to take the killer on 4 chases instead of one, if all chases last 1 minute then you got that grace period out of DS. If you ever made a mistake instead of being punished for it, you will be released and gain a extra life via DS. The gens will be done very quickly so while you may die, you still won the game really.

    in Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @GeneralV said:

    A perfect DBD for me? Well, it is way too long of a list to post here, but I will tell first thing I would do: I would bring back the old, slower killer animations and nerf gen speeds to compensate.

    If you don't know what I am talking about:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/YSXADLC1957W/oldanimation.gif

    Wow, that looks great, I didn't know that was a thing... :(

    in What is your perfect dbd? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @TobeySK said:

    I bought the game last christmas and only played a bit.

    I started playing the game more regularly last week again and got a better killer rank by now.

    What I noticed since I got to rank 14 is that I get way more unconsistent matches. Some matches I am up against survivors with purple ranks and I still manage to get 2 kills (sometimes even 3 or 4 when they get greedy at the end). Then I sometimes have matches like in the pic, where everything is in but I don't get anyone since it feels that everyone plays like they are a pro-player (in this case especially the rank 15 player. He played like the rank 8 player).

    Especially in this match it felt like they all played very coordinated and were on the same skill level (probably a group of 4 people).

    Is this a normal matchmaking in this game?

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Z3YHM9L2W4CD/dead-by-daylight-screenshot-2021-05-08-20-33-21-08.png

    [Redacted]

    in Is this normal matchmaking? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @Mr_Slick546 said:

    I played a few rounds of Trapper earlier today and noticed my addons were unequipping after each game, it's actually pathetic that this is still a thing, how long has this been going on? Pretty sure it's been around for a while. Can you guys try fixing some really basic issues?

    This isn't a Trapper post, this is a fix basic issues that have no right staying in the game post.

    This has been a issue for a long time.

    Also Nurse's phantom blinking (When you use the power sometimes the nurse's power glitchs and it reloops itself in the process forcing you to release the power button wasting time, or sometimes doing a blink to the nurse's original position regardless of how long you hold the power button thus wasting the blink)

    in I feel embarrassed for behavior Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @ilovedbd123 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2169509#Comment_2169509

    I quoted your previous comment, the one I replied to when you replied to me. Whether that's your words or someone else's, I'm only replying to what I replied to.

    Simply put- I replied to a comment from someone, you replied to my reply. I'm therefore quoting the thing I've replied to originally, and since you felt the need to reply to this comment in particular and are defending said comment, Im pointing out where in the original comment I replied to this was said. Whether or not you hold this position- I'll go back and check if it was you who said this quote, I am not sure as I'm writing this.

    Simply not how logic works, this is a false dichotomy. Just because I reply to you doesn't mean I agree with what someone else said. Again, this is a fallacy. There were a many of outcomes of which I could of replied to you. Some reason you just never considered I read what you said and disagreed with something from my own person.

    At least I understand what you are talking about slightly now. My stance is my own stance, I simply disagreed with something you said. I was not defending anyone, and you assumed AND asserted I have. I am not someone else, and my claim is not someone elses unless I directly say or implicate it is to which I've done neither.

    @ilovedbd123 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2146839#Comment_2146839

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2146408#Comment_2146408

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2169509#Comment_2169509

    What does The middle quote say.

    I quoted you exactly "If the survivors play correctly you will only down one", using this as an excuse to say he shouldn't have guarded basement at the top to ensure getting both kills is by association saying that the survivors messing up before doesn't matter as long as they can outplay them now then some sort of reward should be gained. That is what you have said there, that's not me putting words in your mouth.

    The reason why I kept saying go back, is because your blatant disregard of logic has me even lost where to start, to such a degree I feel like I am telling a child what sight is. I thought maybe you would just read it like I said, and reply back. I was clearly mistaken however as you still have not.

    I quoted you exactly "If the survivors play correctly you will only down one", using this as an excuse

    There is so much wrong with this sentence, and it demonstrates you don't understand what I have said. Firstly, I was not talking at all about it as a excuse. Its NOT a excuse, its objective to the situation. If the survivors play correctly in zed situation YOU WILL only down one, REGARDLESS if I like it or not that is the fact.

    he shouldn't have guarded basement at the top to ensure getting both kills is by association saying that the survivors messing up before doesn't matter as long as they can outplay them now then some sort of reward should be gained. That is what you have said there, that's not me putting words in your mouth.

    So yes, yes this is putting words in my mouth. If you weren't I wouldn't say that you were not. The fact that you strawman this into me saying "He shouldn't do X to ensure X" is just disingenuous. A direct claim, you state I have made when again, I have reiterated it as clearly as possible this is not what I have said.

    Also, that is not how implication works even if I did say that, there are major holes in your logic. If someone we're to say that, it would have no bearing at all if or not on survivors performance and nor is a reward even hinted at all. IE: If someone used that as a excuse for stopping killer ensured kills (Which I have no clue why you bring this up as it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about), it in no way says anything about the survivors plays, nor does it take in consideration what the survivors are doing.

    A sentence of "I love apples and they are my favorite food ever, therefore oranges are better then apples" makes more sense then what you have just said.

    in Nobody likes a short match... Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @ilovedbd123 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2147172#Comment_2147172

    You said, and I quote " If the survivors play correctly you will only down one". So let's look at this as a whole then. The survivors have gotten into the basement, ######### up number one. They aren't healing whilst down in the basement, which would force the killer to come down and allow maybe one of them to escape, ######### up number two. Why should either of these ######### ups be disregarded by, they've ######### up but if they play correctly now they won't get punished for the previous ######### up.

    What part of this isn't true? Or are you just going to pivot again to Another you haven't read my post before replying?

    Right so your last point is that they should be punished harshly for this missplay, surely then this killer was doing his duty as a killer and ensuring they got punished since they refused the just punishment that they should've gotten. He didn't play right into their hands and rather than holding the game hostage he was instead ensuring he got his kills that he had rightfully earned.

    Ah ok I am back and read it as I remember now.

    Nope, you still are creating a strawman. Go read what I said, correctly, and I will reply to an actual argument.

    You still are creating arguments for me.

    in Nobody likes a short match... Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @ilovedbd123 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2147172#Comment_2147172

    You said, and I quote " If the survivors play correctly you will only down one". So let's look at this as a whole then. The survivors have gotten into the basement, ######### up number one. They aren't healing whilst down in the basement, which would force the killer to come down and allow maybe one of them to escape, ######### up number two. Why should either of these ######### ups be disregarded by, they've ######### up but if they play correctly now they won't get punished for the previous ######### up.

    What part of this isn't true? Or are you just going to pivot again to Another you haven't read my post before replying?

    Right so your last point is that they should be punished harshly for this missplay, surely then this killer was doing his duty as a killer and ensuring they got punished since they refused the just punishment that they should've gotten. He didn't play right into their hands and rather than holding the game hostage he was instead ensuring he got his kills that he had rightfully earned.

    I totally forgot what we are talking about, so I will just digress as I am too lazy rn to read everything over again to understand what you are talking about.

    in Nobody likes a short match... Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @SammiieK1991 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2157205#Comment_2157205

    Beo that's alot of bad words.

    XD

    in Nobody likes a short match... Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @JPLongstreet said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2149189#Comment_2149189

    If you're questioning what they're referring to, it's the inconsist and at times rough fps the consoles get, in particular the prior generation ones like mine.

    Depending on the map, killer, and what's going on in a match, the frames struggle to 30, and for me can drop into the teens on the indoor maps.

    This is in addition to studders and freezes whenever a killer gets Bloodlust, Myers tiers up, Sloppy Butcher is applied, Exposed or Exhausted is triggered, many many more. A look through the various posts here will elaborate. Heck i get frame drops on the title screens and in the Bloodwebs.

    Ah.

    in Crossplatform Progression? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @danielmaster87 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2147196#Comment_2147196

    60 frames is a dream for most of us. Your 120 frames is on another plain of existence.

    ???

    in Crossplatform Progression? Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @unluckycombo said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2147613#Comment_2147613

    Lol I did??? I specifically responded to your point of calling 'Base Survivor OP' and your point about how 'Perks are powerful in certain situations', where in I was attempting to clarify their point on why perks like Mettle of Man is both hard to get value out of, or justify bringing- as you seemed to have kinda missed the other poster's point in that regard. (And to add to that, I'll even tac on something here, and state that I believe that the other user is correct in stating that protection hits when trying to help an injured Survivor are extremely unreliable, as the game is all over the place on what a protection hit is unless you're running directly behind them, or taking a hit for a carried Survivor. I've had wonky hits count as protection hits where I wasn't even close to them, and hits where I was right next to them not count. Just like many things in the game, like breaking GF out of stealth, it's unreliable and buggy.)

    Though, if you wanted to tell me you didn't read my post, you coulda just said 'TL;DR', or just not responded to it. Woulda done the same thing in less words. ;)

    You still have offered no retort.

    in Mettle of man should only require two hits Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @ItzPixelYT said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2146778#Comment_2146778

    "ThE bAsE sUrViVoR kIt Is GoOd WiThOuT pErKs" the fact that you think that is hilarious, let's see how well 4 random survivors with no perks would do in every game.......

    It's like you're trying to make it out that perks shouldn't exist for Survivor because let's all have the same playstyle and repetitive gameplay.

    The fact you don't even know how bad the "protection hit" detection is on the game just shows you don't actually play survivor.

    Also DS USED to be one of the most used perks in the game. Now you barely see it or even see an obsession in games because no one wants to use it anymore since the nerf.

    Also you're literally just sounding like everyone else on the forum with every argument..."you must be new to the game"...the fact you think Slugging isn't a strong play against Survivors just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Some Killers can end the game at 5/4 gens just by slugging...

    "ThE bAsE sUrViVoR kIt Is GoOd WiThOuT pErKs" the fact that you think that is hilarious, let's see how well 4 random survivors with no perks would do in every game.......

    Yes, because they objectively can.

    It's like you're trying to make it out that perks shouldn't exist for Survivor because let's all have the same playstyle and repetitive gameplay.

    False strawman.

    The fact you don't even know how bad the "protection hit" detection is on the game just shows you don't actually play survivor.

    False assertion.

    Also DS USED to be one of the most used perks in the game. Now you barely see it or even see an obsession in games because no one wants to use it anymore since the nerf.

    Still is one of them, to think otherwise is silly.

    Also you're literally just sounding like everyone else on the forum with every argument..."you must be new to the game"...the fact you think Slugging isn't a strong play against Survivors just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Some Killers can end the game at 5/4 gens just by slugging...

    Ironically you sound like the minority of people I have met on the forums, the type that ignore all the point you brang up.

    If you aren't going to argue the points coolio, but you are still objectively wrong and all the point you've ignored stand.

    in Mettle of man should only require two hits Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @unluckycombo said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2146778#Comment_2146778

    Uhhh... so I hate to break it to you bud, but I'm gonna also say a hard 'no' to this as well.

    Survivor is definitely not OP, (Let alone base kit only survivors) in most scenarios of this game.

    The only time Survivors are truly OP, are when you are against a great, well-coordinated, OoO SWF group (which, won't even be an issue with the OoO changes coming in.) or you're playing at a Tournament level. (I'll also admit that Survivors can also be OP if they're using an actual infinite, however, those are pretty few and far between.)

    Otherwise, I'd argue that most Survivors are most definitely beatable if you play well. Sure, will you still lose the occasional match because of some crappy RNG with your Ruin spawn, Pallet Spawns, or just an unlucky map for your Killer? Totally. Will some Killers struggle more than others? Of course, not every killer is created equal.

    But those are the same things that any player faces, be it when they play Killer or Survivor.

    Sure, a decent SWF might be hard to beat, but they're definitely not impossible, nor are they the top dog if you play well. (Again, can also depend on RNG). Of course, Perks can play to or against your advantage, but at least in my experience, while a lot of people can run the same meta builds (You see quite a bit of DH with console SWFs at least, but I'm not going to say that there's a full meta team in every lobby because... well, there just isn't.) that doesn't mean they'll use them well. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Survivors make a mistake with one of their perks, the Killer didn't capitalize on it, and then would wonder why they struggled. (Or, a Killer/Survivor team making the same mistake, repeatedly, never learning from it, and wondering why they lose.)

    (I'd also like to make the point that Decent SWF are hard to beat, just like a good Killer with a hardcore meta-build against an average Solo Group or an average SWF who's just a bunch of buds are also just rough and hard to beat. It's honestly p fair on both sides to that regard...)

    I also just wanted to note that I think you missed the other user's point in the last part of their post... There are a lot of niche perks in the game, that can be hard to justify bringing over perks that are much more guaranteed to get you value. That in itself is fine, but when you also bring in the fact that there are a lot of niche perks that aren't even really strong in their niche scenarios compared to other perks, it can be hard to justify bringing them, if you're playing to escape/get a 4k. (For example, it's hard to justify bringing Flip-Flop when there are a lot of hooks on the maps, the wiggle you get isn't great, and it's so situational, that when you're put in that scenario, you're probably better off to have brought Unbreakable in the first place. Or for Killers, it's hard to justify bringing a perk like Gearhead, when you can just bring something like Thrilling and get more guaranteed value from it.) (Granted, I don't really care in that regard, I play casually, so I'll just run whatever I feel like- there are a lot of niche perks that can do great things with good set up, but they just aren't as reliable, so I can see where someone who is playing to escape would be frustrated with them...)

    You could of said that you think I am wrong in less words.

    However you haven't refuted anything I have said so I am not going to bother trying to argue with two people when I am already waiting for one of them.

    Reply to my points or don't bother.

    in Mettle of man should only require two hits Comment by DerpyPlayz

  • @SammiieK1991 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2147176#Comment_2147176

    Ah okay thanks man, I kinda feel like the word jerk though is alot more polite than any other possible words I've seen written on here and that have been edited due to profanity 😂

    Plus the amount of times I've been called that on this forum I've probably had more hot dinners actually... 😂

    Ah, well just a heads up.

    I strongly dislike how it is as well, so just thought I would say somethin'.

    in Nobody likes a short match... Comment by DerpyPlayz
1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11
Avatar