Ecstasy
Ecstasy
About
- Username
- Ecstasy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
If voice chat is allowed, then stream sniping is too.
You cant cheat with technology and then be mad when someone cheats back.
End of discussion.
-
@MadLordJack said:
A lot of DbD is extremely easy, mostly survivor. It doesn't take a genius game master to beat nearly every killer, it takes VC, a little basic co-ordination, and predropped pallets/massive W holding. Same with killer, just equip Freddy with PGTW, Thrilling, Sloppy and Corrupt and you can just mindlessly hold W at survivors for most trials, you don't even need to know how to loop. It's not quite as easy as cheesing it as a survivor, but it's as close as it gets.
Not to derail the thread too much, but I'm genuinely curious what is it about Freddy that makes something like this feasible compared to any other M1 killer? (Or is the general idea there just that x strong killer + y strong perks gives same result)
-
@Rizzo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2021975#Comment_2021975
You are confusing what happens on a streaming platform with what happens on a discussion platform, as said we have a clearly stated rule against naming and shaming, if you have any issue with those people, you have to discuss it with them on their platform.
Not so. It's vertical integration.... uh, or horizontal.... well, maybe more diagonal here? Something like that.
If this were an independent forum that logic would hold, but it's run by the people who control the direct content that's being streamed. BHVR could--if they wanted--ban people who released footage without first obscuring the names. They could--if they wanted--include a means of automatically obscuring that info for streaming. The former idea isn't very realistic---though the latter seems pretty easy--but the point being: they wield power over the content produced (and, more-so, what continues being produced) even without controlling the platforms.
When it comes to FogWhispers though, it's not even control by-proxy though. There's already a direct financial relationship I'd expect to include any number of onerous conditions already. A clause against "naming & shaming" from at least their quasi-employee streamers is easily within grasp.
Not to say they should (or shouldn't do) this. It's the schism of standards that's funny. Outside the forums, they seem perfectly in-line with the reality most everyone else accepts as fair game (that being "if you don't want your gameplay shared, you shouldn't be playing multiplayer games" and such).
To be fair, it's not really ironic I suppose. Silly--sure--but the actual underlying logic is consistently applied. Fog Whispers talking smack about nobodies benefits them. Nobodies speaking ill of Fog Whispers--even in measured, accurate and meaningful discussion--well, that ain't so good. Thus, policy is born.
-
@Rizzo said:
You can discuss the topic, but please keep in mind the forums have a no name and shame policy, so avoid naming specific people, especially in a negative light.
Please do not reveal the names of the people who have recorded your gameplay/gamertag for their thousands of followers to all mock.
Irony overload.
-
I think you make some pretty good points.
-
@Scotty2hotties said:
The fact this thread was created surprises no one. Not because it should be considered, but gives you a good idea the community that lobbies for the most changes on here.
Most people on this forum play both sides of this game (and rather equally). They offer up detailed explanations for their positions, justified by logical arguments and examples. Only better logic counters those positions. Their goal: a better and more enjoyable game.
I wouldn't actually even know who the "killer mains!" and "survivor mains!" are among most regular posters here. But it's 100% transparent when posters show up who do land in those absurd categories of entitled tribalism.
Of course everything looks like it helps the big bad X-Mains... secretly controlling the devs, the forums, the media, international banking, whatever... when you're so radically entrenched in your "identity" as a Y-Main. You just presume everyone else thinks in those same terms.
If you want to be taken seriously, drop the persecution complex. Logic speaks for itself.
-
It's 100% your own cognitive biases.
-
Too many no-no words in my murder simulator
######### ridiculous.
-
I'd rather go against iridescent hatchets any day of the week than play against a stealth camping deathslinger with that #########.
Not much skill or challenge hitting a stationary target at a fixed location where you know someone must go to end up locked into an unhook animation soon.
[Bonus, because its a hook area, there's specifically zero near obstacles to use... but they're also gonna pick the most exposed hooks offering the clearest line of approach without any medium distance walls/obstacles to get snagged on].
Even if they only pull it off for the first rescue attempt, getting a 2nd person from full health to death state without a moment spent on chasing and the initial player STILL on their hook... that's the sort of snowball pressure to end all snowballs.
Totally miserable experience.
-
@KiwiCoattails said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2014054#Comment_2014054
The only thing I can think of is that I didn’t join in with them farming but I didn’t realise that’s what was happening? The Huntress kept chasing me and losing me, so I didn’t take that as her being friendly. She eventually downed me with a hatchet because apparently my hit box is the same size as an Orca Whale and then I have the Meg and Kate who I both saved teabagging and shaking their head at me a long with The Kuntress. 🙄
I don't actually know what happened--obviously--as I'm just speculating over your own speculation regarding a situation you're not totally sure what happened in either, but maybe there's something to that idea.
The question is where/when did the survivors switch from that usual "run from killer" operating logic to knowing they even could taunt you without the killer immediately downing them right after. And then there's the question of why would they.
Could it be that the earlier "saves" you got weren't an act of politeness from you, but their politeness towards you? Maybe, having picked up on whatever hints you missed (now including a pattern of HUD/aura information reads unlike any serious game for you to notice), they left those unhooks for you to claim points too. They hoped you'd finally catch-on once the killer returns and notice that nobody else was panicked or fleeing.
If the situation involves you basically straight up watching everyone else chilling around the killer after the unhook, yet you're the only one running off to the next stun & loop like any normal game--well, okay... I could see them thinking you were actually just some try-hard jerk who just refused to give a friendly killer a 4th stack of BBQ even after getting some saves of your own.
Also... are you sure it was a SWF? This case might also explain three randoms acting out and taunting you if each was individually aware o f the situation and slapping their forehead as you kept being (or so they perceived) super sweaty instead of wising up.
That said.... could just as easily be a random group of turds sandbagging for fun without a reason still. All types of people in this game.
-
Hell, at least he has one OP iridescent.
Both of the Nurse's irris aren't even useless---they're actively detrimental to her.
-
@CountVampyr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2007788#Comment_2007788
If you read the entire conversation going on you would have your answer.
Eh... the context of your reply & the last few posts seemingly suggested you all were arguing about the difficulty of the challenge that actually exists in this game, as this thread was devoted to sorting out. I missed that split 10 posts earlier where the central matter seemingly shifted to arguing the hypothetical difficulty of a challenge that never existed yet which others are clearly still misinterpreting it as.
Might be some connection there to why people keep showing up making posts thinking the matter remains a mystery...
-
@CountVampyr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2007239#Comment_2007239
Again: if the perameters is to do all of that within the very first 5 seconds of a chase.... VERY DIFFICULT.
So good thing it's not?
Did you misread "Hide in a locker within 5 seconds of being in a chase with a killer" as "...within 5 seconds of beginning a chase" or something?
-
Can always shout out those snappy sayings: "Gens Popped = Anything Goes" and "EGC = EndGameCamp", to remind them that's a pivotal part of the game with killers and survivors down to the last objective, so anything goes trying to finish it. Also results in some of the most fun and most intense moments, especially when 3 players are trying to maneuver around 1 to save another. Its such a ride.
But I think the most important thing is that when accusations start flying (whether your game, twitch chat, youtube vid you're watching), politely remind them that's the last objective. Maybe try to gain understanding from empathy by challenging them to outline what better strategy they'd be pursuing in that moment that would secure them any more kills.
When the other survivors are calling the killer names in the chat, it's always nice when the one who actually got camped stands up to talk sense. (Having been in that situation as both the killer & the camped survivor).
-
@DetailedDetriment said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2004186#Comment_2004186
Personally, I only found Jason v Freddy, Jason In Space, and Jason In Manhatten to be bad movies. The 2009 reboot was meh too, but the rest of the movies are the definition of a slasher flick.
Whaaaaaaaaat. Every movie you mention as bad are actually the good ones. The more serious the take, the worse the movie. Even the ones with psychic powers are pretty bleh.
(As a matter of fact, the remake actually was the only remotely serious entry that was any good. I got much respect for Nespel's remaking 4 crappy movies into one decent movie that preserves all the iconic elements that make Jason into Jason when those elements are slowly added and the least of him)
The thing most people don't admit about slashers is that most are seriously boring as #########.
I'm a major horror aficionado--no doubt--though the biggest pop-culture horror icons actually tend to be some of the lamest characters in the genre when you get past their pivotal intro film... except Jason doesn't even have that going for him.
Texas, Halloween, Nightmare. These are ######### classics. Genuinely brilliant films by some (not always, but more than once) brilliant directors. Hooper, Carpenter, and Craven.
Friday the 13th is a whodunit revealing the killer as.... random ass lady who shows up at the end--a big ######### you to mystery presentation and setup. But it was effectively the Blair Witch / Paranormal Activity of its day: majorly cheap films to produce that ended up making major bank so sequels/imitations got pumped out like crazy. [Why was F13 such a hit? Uh, subconscious valuation of future Kevin Bacon? Tom Savini's practical effects? Hell if I know. It already was aping a well established genre... including 2 of those 3 iconic films mentioned above which actually are brilliant. Never really much sense.]
Though, like F13, those other slasher got their goliath cultural status from going down to sequel down too. Though with the others (and their initial entries), you could retcon their sequels existence from reality and their premiere works would still make them lasting icons in the eyes of people like myself anyhow (maybe even moreso) due to the presence in horror history. It's really decades of bad films that give them culturally juggernaut status where people respect them even if they most of the movies would bore them to tears if they ever had to watch 'em.
Even with Halloween, you could straight up burn every sequel after the first from existence and you won't lose a thing. (Personally, I'm damn sure speaking about Halloween 2 also, and those H20 and the H20-20 redux crap.... JLC be damned!). It's even more brilliant in a universe on its own without all the cultural baggage to the rest of the movies. It holds up so, so well.
Exact same for most TCM flicks, well, mostly... I still put aside a warm spot for the 2nd flick as something so cheeky and hilarious (that breakfest club poster tells you everything!). But at least most TCM sequels aren't aggressively bad/boring like most Halloween ones there.
Meanwhile NOES... well, okay that's actually the exception where sequels are mostly worth your time at least. I mean, 2 is a "hate it" at first entry but incredibly sub-textually rich in a way that absolutely redeems the cheese.... 3 is about as iconic for introducing that prime time charisma (though not the same unsettling actual horror anymore) and the others get progressively worse though actually hold out mostly as watchable.... then you get to "A New Nightmare" and it's actually on par with the first Nightmare film with an equally horror filled entry (even more-so) with this rich retake on manifesting dreams and thoughts into reality by going meta.
And.... wow, okay I swept off topic from like paragraph 2 and went on a run to tangent town just rambling. I'm just gonna shut up now.
-
I think the whole survivor/killer dichotomy is dumb as hell (and its simply unreasonable that anyone who considers only half the game should expect their opinions regarding balance to be taken seriously), but I also think people internalize it way too much and perceive too many things as being the collective cry of the survivor/killer mains when that's not necessarily true.
But man.... if there's one person I actually can expect to embody that "entitled survivor main!" mentality, yeah, it's my man sluzzy here.
God bless you crazy diamond in the sky. God bless.
-
@fray1919 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2002155#Comment_2002155
I personally think that taunting in a competition isn't exactly something to make such a big judgement on as not "something a good and decent human being does."
You can say it's different, but I don't think NFL players taunting an opposing QB to try and get him to make a mistake are not "good and decent human beings" who don't come from "well educated households." Just don't make it personal.
But YMMV.
Just a fun aside in case that analogy was also intended to evoke some sort of kinship between taunting in DBD and in the NFL as legitimate tactics, when the reality of comparing them suggests a behavior similarly warranting punishment for such exceptional douchebaggery:
Taunting of an opponent is a foul under N.F.L. playing rules and will be called by the game officials (15-yard penalty). In addition, the taunting player will be fined.
Any flagrant acts or remarks that deride, mock, bait or embarrass an opponent are considered taunting. This includes, but is not limited to, spiking the football near a defender after a touchdown, shoving the ball at an opponent, or repeated finger-pointing. Remember, if you spike the ball near an opponent after a play, you risk being called for taunting even if you don't mean to taunt.
Player demonstrations (for example, end-zone dances) are not fouls under N.F.L. playing rules and will not result in penalties by the game officials. However, if a demonstration constitutes taunting (see section immediately above), or if it is unsportsmanlike conduct or delays the game, a foul will be called.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/04/sports/pro-football-the-nfl-view-on-taunting.html#:~:text=Any%20flagrant%20acts%20or%20remarks,%2C%20or%20repeated%20finger%2Dpointing.(Part in bold is particularly funny given the situation though)
-
@Gay_Police_Dept said:
Absolutely nothing. Just snowflakes get triggered by it.
Here I would make a bunch of unkind--yet clearly accurate--observations about the type of person you are. Naturally, not liking those things, you would get TRIGGARRD (or "angry", as a functional adult might call it). This experiment would reveal how messages intended to convey disrespect do, in-fact, convey the very disrespect originally intended. A conclusion most recognize already as "no ######### duh!"
Whether you would actually understand the lesson, or merely double down in oblivious hypocrisy--well, that I can't quite say.
However, I shall refrain from that educational opportunity here, as I'm above the sort of hurtful observations required to provoke this point.
-
Nurse was always hard to learn, but they also made Nurse such a slog to play with extra fatigues and a billion bugs they don't care about in order to deincentivize more players from learning her.
Good luck!
-
Please stop DCing. <---the period part there can be said aloud for emphasis
-
All the freaking "REWARDS BAD PLAYERS!" arguments needs to ######### die already.
It would massively benefit this community we all just argued to nuke from orbit the moment anyone utters those damned words with regard to their proposed gameplay or balance changes.
It's preposterous. It's 100% preposterous. Your own perceived entitlement to 'win' (which sure as hell ain't coming from an objective accounting of all those other circumstances either, actually weighing every advantage or disadvantage to truly measure who over/under performed relative to the odds) doesn't equate to meaningful game design.
The idea that games should always favor the best person--continue to favor them with greater advantages--is the antithesis of fun game design, which demands stakes that can actually flip and potential for that ever beloved come-back. (And this is why we have THE HATCH my friends!)
Damn near half the perks operate to "reward bad players" already. That's the point. The game design purposefully provides perks split along the line of either rewarding you for playing well, or recovering when you make mistakes. (Hell, it's not necessarily that you're making mistakes--sometimes its simply recovery where the other team has played-well, considering the atypical game design & rough balance.)
The perk divide also enriches player choice / strategy by introducing another risk/reward to perk selection in synergy or insurance. Players need to balance their perks knowing they could end up stacking ones they didn't need (because they're never behind in those bad situations), or ones that aren't helping (because they're getting their ass kicked, and never able to collect the reward synergy). Unbreakable is bleh when you don't get slugged, and everything when you do.
To isolate NOED as problematic for "rewarding bad players", that's simply hypocrisy and props up totally invalid reasoning. The appeal is a false notion of meritocracy, which doesn't (and shouldn't) exist for this game. The notion belongs to the arena of "pure" competition where the aim is reducing variables (like seeing how far everyone can throw the same disk), not where variables and variety are everything. Sure, you can dodge the hypocrisy and propose that all perks should "reward good players & punish bad players".... but that's also boring as hell. DBD is a game, and we need game design.
-
@WestManTooth210 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1981580#Comment_1981580
Being punish again for something you already did punishment for is unjustified. And to say, the DC system cant and should not change is also counter productive. Remember, devs said hackers and malicious players were able to cause other players to time out and get a time penalty. Think about it.
The argument isn't that DC punishments can't ever be improved. The argument is they worked exactly as intended here, and you got everything coming to you. That is justice.
You've not actually proposed any viable alterative, nor have you even outlined meaningful injustices that might warrant abandoning it for less effective yet "fair" alternatives (more prone to abuse by people like yourself). You're only arguing some theoretical misapplication of justice as your avenue to escape the meaningful pursuit of justice as it occurred here. A distinction fooling no one.
You weren't wrongfully punished twice. The system actively takes accident potential into account with the penalties dolled out, whereas you anticipated hiding your disconnects under that umbrella of goodwill afforded everyone via inconsequential initial punishments.
You also shouldn't cite axioms like "double punishment is unjust" as the sole reason you should avoid any meaningful punishment, when:
- (A) you've now got the substantial burden of proving the axiom is even true in the first place, and then proving your circumstances actually meet that standard,
- (B) that's not strictly true, as these events mirror the concept of parole violation, in which lesser crimes (even the appearance of criminal association depending on the terms) similarly invalidate the notion of that prior crime "being paid for" already, and...
- (C) your circumstance damn well suggest otherwise, where--if you definitely wanna label this double punishment--well, clearly double punishment must be justified at least sometimes--as there's no doubt you're deserving of harsher punishment with intended DCs expecting to manipulate the system in a way you can shrug off.
In a perfect system... you would have been barred 5 hours that first time around. Perfect isn't possible though, so we err on the side of caution with an allowance for valid/accidental disconnects with penalties short enough to match those real occurrences.
The fact you faced actual consequences for a calculated abuse of the system you figured would fly under the radar... all because you took-advantage of the safety-net we're normally afforded, only to end up needing it for real... yeah, that's the furthest thing from injustice. That's, like, divine justice by way of irony.
-
When an accidental disconnect lands you a 5 hour DC penalty, you're never being unfairly punished for that accident.
You're being fairly punished for all those intentional DCs earlier where the system erred on the side of caution with a "slap on the wrist" from the goodwill assumption it might not be your fault.
In truth, you tried to game the system earlier knowing the 5 minute penalty wasn't that rough. You didn't account for the possibility of real disconnects and abused the safety net provided. Now, you're getting the hour+ penalties deserved for the level of recklessness you absolutely committed (whether it actually occurred earlier, now, or both).
You gambled. You lost. Get over it... and maybe use that downtime to peruse a literary classic called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1976739#Comment_1976739
I would agree right up until the twins....I hate every aspect of them.
Don't like playing as them, against them, hate how they look, even their power was made to be somehow not satisfying to just use because of how rough they feel.
(I kinda used your comment as a springboard to go into my own thoughts in depth here. Didn't mean to intimidate you with idea of this monumental post over couple sentences you posted, hah.)
I don't really like the "look" exactly either, but whether you think Twins actually ended up fun/balanced killers to play as or against isn't very relevant a point when it comes to the question of Iconic vs Original. That could swing either direction whether doing a licensed character or
another rip-off a horror icon instead...uh, I mean another "original" design. The (arguable) failed implementation of a brilliant take doesn't make the idea any less brilliant.Design-wise, it's obviously a ripoff of Basket Case (and that idea to differentiate by making Victor a baby instead of a blob like Beliel sure bit them in the butt, lol) but I still don't know how anyone could call the concept and idea anything less than truly inspired. They're totally different than what we've had before, and go down a very bold path that's extremely refreshing and just cool as hell by finally trying out some switching mechanic and a unconventional killer size (plus a mechanic that somewhat lets survivors "fight back" while giving new threats to the existing loop game and such). It's refreshing.
Conceptually, the TWINS are simply ######### gold. I don't understand how anyone could argue against that sort of creativity in favor of, say, "lets add Twisty from AHS!" when--like most recognizable icons to chose from--their implementation requires yet another base M1 design while stretching hard to come up with any sort of gimmick that hopefully might set them apart.
Another example with 2 of the most iconic representations left out there: people want Alien or Predator. And--these incredibly cool concepts in their own media--are overwhelmingly bleh conceptual translations to this game where it's basically another M1 with Alien (or Demo lunge anyhow) while Predator means yet another projectile killer. Thematically, both are terrible ######### choices too. Aliens are more insectoid, and--while very intellegent and good at strategy/trapping--they are purpose driven rather than emotional or cruel in drawing out suffering for pleasure as with the killers we require. Meanwhile ######### is a Predator doing in this game anyhow hunting down a bunch of unarmed weaklings. That's not hunt.
Fact is, the "original" characters provide waaaay more room for interesting design. Even though I harp on them for ripping off Basketcase (mostly for never once acknowledging it) their "inspired by" design for the Twins rather than Duane/Beliel provides the wiggle room to do more. It's a far better fit thematically and integrated better where their "Duane" is a killer too providing the m1 attack and lifting stuff, while meaning they could do the "Beliel" part as something unique without having to reshape every base mechanic around a killer that's 1 foot tall.
-
@ThePolice said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1980294#Comment_1980294
When Say evil dead I specifically mean the movies, army of darkness evil ash or deadite ash would be cool alongside a young ash cosmetic or new character
Medieval ash for the win.
They're really missing out on the big bucks when it comes to evil dead cosmetics--though I verrrrry much dig the handpuppet and S-mart ones. And his christmas sweater is ######### supreme.
Y'know... actually I guess they could also do Mia from the Evil Dead remake as a decent killer.
She sorta works as a Deadite iconic enough (whose not Ash) given she wasn't the normal body invasion thing, and actually this central antagonist of the film in both the original demon possession and ends up the protagonist by the end as this Nu-Ash role as the last one left fighting off her Demons at the end. Literal demon sure, but y'know figurative too, with the battle costing her an arm (that movie is freaking layered yo)
And her add-ons can be syringes, spoons, lighters, so on. Because her power is heroin.
-
@ThePolice said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1976584#Comment_1976584
Alien, predator, evil dead movies, resident evil... the list goes on
.....uh, they already did Evil Dead, hombre.
There's just no real iconic enemy that works as an enemy * since it's all about the Deadities and dismemberment with the thread being that classic unstoppable demon body-infection that takes us all.
*(If you're thinking Ruby from the show, that's majorly aesthetical boring and also a very paint by numbers choice, trying to 1:1 where its really not feasible and would require a lot of flexing and refitting to do something, so better to not do at all in that case.)
Actually, to be fair, they DID have a shot but they messed it up because timing is everything with this idea: they needed to do a dual release where Ash is both a survivor AND killer choice. Ideally, do evil Ash from Army of Darkness though gotta say Deadite Ash was always cool looking in ED2.
That said.....Angela from Night Of The Demons could do some pretty kick ass demon chaos as a killer and iconic enough to work.
-
@Volfgang57 said:
Can't believe they jailed my man @poomanchu for talking about butts 😭
Epic use of discretion, mods.
Get that man for making the thread where everyone is having fun and coming together from of place of appreciation, respect, and aesthetic booty beauty.
(And--if you're the sorta person who perceives things on that levels--quash a celebration of unconventional body-types in a society that so frequently struggles with body-positive thinking, and plagued by a perplexing sense of shame over instinctual sexuality, so natural as to literally define our existence)
-
@JackFrostMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1975117#Comment_1975117
Again. They do it to get attention. You think they would keep doing it if people didn't react? They ain't gonna stop because you go "please stop doing this".
Don't pretend like it wouldn't happen anyway if there weren't threads about how its irritating. Most people don't even get a reaction, they just run right out the gates anyhow. Its about the self satisfaction of "hah I showed you!" and the assumption that u mad. Doesn't matter if they are or aren't.
But threads like this might at least get to the people who teabag and taunt thinking it is just all in good fun and not being empathic enough to understand its gawdy as hell and there's a reason taunting isn't common in competition outside the realm of children, it's the sort of behavior that ruins games, not makes them. And if not that, then maybe some will start thinking pragmatically and start connecting the dots that treating every killer like garbage = fewer killers = longer queues and decide that maybe there's something to this whole "treating other people the way you'd like to be treated" thing.
-
@Phasmamain said:
Iri head is toxic as you pretty bring it knowing you’ll give the survivors no chance of winning. It’s like survivors bringing OoO in a SWF with a key
Your objective is to get hooks not necessarily just kills
Correction: voice-coms on its own is far, far, far worse than any one-shot hatchet.
The same way that voice-com isn't going to do much help for people who can't play for ######### anyhow, a one shot hatchet isn't going to be much help for people who can't hit ######### with it anyhow.
The key difference is that players still use the in-game mechanics to dodge that hatchet same as the others, or hide, or rush. Their ability to hit you as to be better than your ability to deflect. These are extensions of the game that exists.
Meanwhile, you can't combat an external program operating beyond the games control or mitigate the massive distortion of the game's inherent operating conditions & assumptions by providing players unreasonable/unbalanced amounts of communication and coordination in a game that's designed assuming those two players couldn't even type a message like "jane coming for the save, stay on the gen" or "trap right there" where getting such things wrong can snowball in consequences.
My point isn't about irri being cool or fun---it's just a reminder that voice communication is straight bullshit and will always be de facto cheating in this game no matter how much better it lines the devs pockets to pretend otherwise.
-
Key change coming in the year twenty-twentynever
But hey they said they'd do it, so that's like basically as good as fixed.
-
@Yords said:
I am not here to hate on what other people want or the other games, just voicing my opinion on them.
Tall lady from RE8 or any other RE monster - She is too tall, literally. Imagine looping her around a normal tile with a window and pallet. And what about all the other RE monsters like Tyrant? They would be downgraded from this awesome almost unstoppable beast to a "killer" who can be stopped and stunned by a pallet. Just look at demo, look at him. The poor guy went from taking
Chucky - People have said that Chucky could work because of Victor from the twins' patch. I heavily disagree. Chucky is just a glorified doll, the only reason Victor fits in is because of being a part of Charlotte. Chucky just seems silly to me honestly.
Springtrap, or any FNAF animatronic - I really don't see someone like Springtrap added to DBD. FNAF is a franchise that just doesn't fit with DBD. Again, BHVR would add a killer such as Springtrap and let him be stunned by pallets and looped by survivors. It also doesn't make sense with the lore of the game since he is technically just a robot. (Yes, I know he is technically purple guy or whoever, I used to watch those game theory videos on fnaf as well when this was all the rage).
Candyman - I don't know much about him so I could be wrong, but looking at the movies from the outside he already seems underwhelming. He is like a version of that bloody mary creepypasta.
If you don't know anything about Candyman, please do not talk ######### about Candyman.
And Bloody Mary is an urban legend that's been around for at least 50 years, and Candyman is indeed a take on that sort of folklore. Ain't no crappypastas
-
Could someone please define exactly "crouch tech" means here?
-
@Zesty said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1970783#Comment_1970783
How old are you ? You are obviously uncultured if you think 17 is a kid mate, jog on !
Kids say the darndest things.
-
The sore winners are worse... god, the sore winners are so much worse.
You'd think the cheating level advantages of voice coms would humble people but its the ######### opposite by faaaaaaaaaar.
The DBD playerbase is ######### awful. Straight up.
-
@swager21 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1959906#Comment_1959906
really? i didnt know you can see him back every 40 seconds. i thought that you could only see his aura if he has aura perks
I'm 99% certain.
The phrasing on the perk is very meticulously worded to express the logic of perk interactions: stressing your deal is seeing their aura when they see yours, and stressing this function guarantying they see your aura at times.
Ironically, but as usual, their phrasing actually ends up more confusing when read naturally because they're reluctant to include information that's (in their logic) expressed already and redundant. I guess its like a right-sided brain thing.
-
@swager21 said:
you are pretty much guaranteed to be the obsession so this perk still hinders you more than it helps you. like he can literally see you every 45 seconds
Which is providing a chance for you to see them every 30-45 seconds....
And if you REALLY don't want to be seen during some specific activation period---pretty sure you can try to time yourself so you're in a locker when it'd proc and block the event.
There's a lot more play potential around the perk now for survivors and killers, and it at least mitigates one serious issue that *needs* to be addressed regarding the voicecoms problems in this damn game. The adjustment is pretty damn clever.
-
@Avarice10 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1954374#Comment_1954374
Wherever Killer aura reading perks are commonly used or not, that's beside the point. The point is no survivor perk should be entirely dependent on the killer bringing perks to get any use out of it. That's a bad design, and it's not even a high risk/high reward perk, it's a perk that lets you see the killer WHEN the Killer already can see you. If it's information you want, there's spine chill, if it's stealth you want, there's distortion. The new OoO being entirely dependent on the Killers kit is extremely weak. BBQ is probably the most common aura reading perk, and frankly the return value just isn't worth it. The killer sees all survivors for 2s and you see the killer for 2s and that's it? The perk is more rewarding to the killer than the survivor because it was designed to aid the killer. The survivor would be better off bringing Kindred. It's essentially the survivors version of BBQ but better.
I understand OoO is an unpopular perk to killer mains, but gutting it to the point where it's entirely dependent on your/Killer perks is going too far tbh. The only way I could potentially see any real value out of a OoO that is dependent on the killers kit is if the new design of OoO blocked your aura whenever it would be revealed to the killer and instead allowed you to see the Killer, if that were the case then this perk would be valuable and justified to be dependent on the killers kit, but that's not the case currently.
Honestly, the more I think about the proposed rework for OoO the more apparent of how garbage it is.
1. You see the aura of the killer WHEN they can see yours
2. If the killer doesn't bring aura perks you get no use out of it
3. Randomly have your aura revealed to the killer every 30 seconds
This is garbage.
When considering each of those facts in reverse order, the logic flows more clearly:
3 - Your aura is revealed to the killer every 30 seconds.
2 - Some killers also utilize perks that reveal your aura situationally too.
1 - Whenever the killer sees YOUR aura, YOU SEE THEIRS TOO.
Ergo... even if they're using 0 aura perks.... you BOTH see each other every 30 seconds.
There is a bit more to it, where point 3 at the start there is actually "If you're the obsession, then..." though I didn't wanna get bogged down on details before I could stress how those facts intertwine for the main idea here: the killer seeing you is about you seeing them. When you add in the stipulation, yeah there's a situation where the perk could go unused but that just puts it in line with like what half of all perks though. I'd w stager statically far more likely to be used per every time equipped than even something people value like unbreakable where its a function of getting slugged at all.
-
How the ######### whispers and spine chill work. I Tried them so many times to conclude they were 100% percent useless until I looked up actual video explanations that explain the part I'm suppose to be learning from.
...which basically is just a subset of the the total mystery presented by the user interface and what information you even have
...which also goes to something I only found like 6 months ago anyhow: the ######### in-game tutorials for killer/survivor aren't the *only* information available and the "tutorial" prompt under them is actually a totally different thing with like 17 pages of information
...which actually does have a glossary explaining all jargon like "exposed" and "deep wounds" with their circular references but never outright defining those terms in the perks/whatever so even at 100 hours you gotta pull up the wiki to remember what "managed" actually means again
....which all wraps back to include all the obtuse UI symbols and the battle to understand, like, squiggly eye pyramid hippo or whatever
-
@Clevite said:
I have been thinking MMR is secretly on, because many of my games, on both sides, have been very competitive.
I've been kinda wondering this too.
I dont know, I didn't play for last two months basically and deranked from purps to the 13 line, so its hard for me to tell, but even then it's like I'm getting wonderfully fair matches compared to the stuff I'd been experiencing as a rank 8-10 going against rank 1s on the reg.
Survivor has been "harder" but not like artificially with the one on one ######### me any more than it use to, I think its just been better balanced now and I'm seeing lesser performances from less skilled team players so not as easy to tip the match into a solo blowout with everyone knowing the maps perfectly and gens gens gnes.
I've had way more fun games on both sides too.
-
All killers are viable, if your definition of viable is x.
Not all killers are viable, if your definition of viable is y.
Case closed.
-
@bjorksnas said:
So this happens to everyone and for some reason
personally I actually see it now as a blessing in disguise
going against good players even if they are ruthless is really putting you nose to the grindstone and its a good way to improve quickly at the game, while you could just whack other babies for another 200 hours while barely learning anything, going against good survivors would probably make you learn 10x faster, id say if you are up to the challenge go for it as 98% of it is uphill from here (2% is still when you get a good swf that will probably guaranteed crush you)
The best means of learning is experience, though that's largely because you're able to apply what you're observing/thinking and respond to that feedback with experimentation in real time. Stronger opponents provide more & new experiences to take into account, so generally you're gonna learn more from superior opponents than facing the same class of player forever... yet there's a pivot point.
How much would you really learn about boxing from going all-out against Mike Tyson for a round?
Would you learn more, or less, than going all-out against someone of even the exact same experience level as you instead?
When it comes to your next match tomorrow against someone with slightly more experience than you, which of those experiences would help you more? Which experience actually made you the better boxer for that next match-up?
And here's the big one.... are you more likely to come back every day after that to try and learn more if you're going against Tyson again (and again, and again) or if you're going against someone of equivalent skill each time, with opponents increasingly in skills as you do? Remember you're doing this for fun.
And Tyson gonna teabag every match too.
-
@azame said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840001#Comment_1840001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4TSXm8zuAQ&t=115s
Heres the video in question. It's both povs but angrypug was lowkey rude lol.
Thanks.
Never really watched the guy before--so maybe that's actually restrained for him, I dunnno--but, uh, yikes on that one.
Two random questions:
1. What do you have your controller sensitivity settings at?
Specifically killer, as I'm still trying to feel out that sweet spot when it comes to killers like Blight. I'm PC, though I play using a DS4 controller too. Also, if console users have that separate option to set mouse sensitivity too like PC does, then what are your mouse sensitivity settings at too?
(Only asking since I know there's a weird reaction with Billy's curving where controller and mouse sensitivity settings impact his curving for some reason, so I figure better to have more info than less when it comes to figuring out my ideal Blight settings)
2. How did you find Felix so quickly at the end there?
After that 3rd hook, it seemed like you didn't even need to orient yourself to the exit gates or look around before rushing off there.
Like, were you heading somewhere specific and just lucked into him; or were you searching open areas by rushing, or did you somehow know he was over there already?
-
@azame said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1837349#Comment_1837349
Yeah I was in the middle of my break and I came back to vent, I was frustrated. There is nothing wrong with that. I left again took my break and now I'm here, so what are you getting at?
At heart I am a survivor main I'll admit. But in reality I can't stomach much survivor. The role has gotten stale. I said I was 4king ay rank 1 with corrupt and that's the truth. Honestly if you think I'm not good at killer do you want to see my video versing angrypug?
I also want to point out I havent even reached my peak yet because I'm on console and now I'm switching to pc where my potential is going to show. Also dont deliberately tell lies.
I never suggested killers needed I nerf my main points were killer is easy in pubs. Comp is a different story because that's where the game is genuinely hard for killer. I dont think the role in general needs nerfs. Maybe a select few but once again never mentioned in my post. I just said killer was easy.
It's sad that you seem to care so much about a person you dont know and try to what be on a moral high ground? Which is fine but dont try and tell lies. One last thing I am running alot more ruin undying and comp builds to work on my killer. I genuinely want to improve and be better at the role. Whether you like it or not I main killer.
From a bit back, but I actually would be interested in that video.
Since you say its vs AngryPug does that mean its from survivor perspective? Or if it was your recording, then have you ever looked to see if it was uploaded from his POV too?
(I always find it interesting being able to watch both killer/survivor POV but rarely come across organic ones from pub matches )
-
@chieften333 said:
You know something is wrong when a skin costs nearly as much as the game itself.
What games?
Though every market has a different demand curve, so what's true for one game may or may not hold for another anyhow.
I've see people toss around the fact that CSGO and whatever have $1000 dollar items, but that's always a terrible example since there's a fundamentally different market that only extends from items given out freely to all players via item drops. It's players setting the prices (and also the ones who profit most from each sale) where prices are a function of real scarcity from low drop rates and high player demand. [This economy also requires outside-trade, whereby parties can actually sell/trade on their own to avoid the store fees, to reach those valuations]
That ######### doesn't fly when you're setting the price for your infinite (or artificially limited) supply. The fact they peddle the equivalent skins from $10 to even $15, where most are a quality equivalent to what modders produce freely for other games, is already something that's pushing the bounds of "#########" pretty hard.
Personally, I'd still wager they would make far more by setting the prices at even half the cost. And actually even more if their highest price legacy crap topped out at $5 at the most. While they understand whale customers that exist out there, they fail to grasp the sort of collector markets that spring up when prices are individually low enough to tantalize "gotta-catch-em-all" for an ever larger base (with less disposable income at any given moment) who ends up methodically purchasing all over time (instead of just their favs) despite an ever-growing catalog of "em" out there to catch.
-
@TicTac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1838767#Comment_1838767
The test would be wasted money. This system was tested in many games and this was the result. It is no coincidence that other games sell their top skins with 15-20 too.
Whales (players who spend really much) make the money
What games?
Though every market has a different demand curve, so what's true for one game may or may not hold for another anyhow.
I've see people toss around the fact that CSGO and whatever have $1000 dollar items, but that's always a terrible example since there's a fundamentally different market that only extends from items given out freely to all players via item drops. It's players setting the prices (and also the ones who profit most from each sale) where prices are a function of real scarcity from low drop rates and high player demand. [This economy also requires outside-trade, whereby parties can actually sell/trade on their own to avoid the store fees, to reach those valuations]
That ######### doesn't fly when you're setting the price for your infinite (or artificially limited) supply. The fact they peddle the equivalent skins from $10 to even $15, where most are a quality equivalent to what modders produce freely for other games, is already something that's pushing the bounds of "#########" pretty hard.
Personally, I'd still wager they would make far more by setting the prices at even half the cost. And actually even more if their highest price legacy crap topped out at $5 at the most. While they understand whale customers that exist out there, they fail to grasp the sort of collector markets that spring up when prices are individually low enough to tantalize "gotta-catch-em-all" for an ever larger base (with less disposable income at any given moment) who ends up methodically purchasing all overtime instead of just their favs, despite an ever-growing catalog of "em" out there to catch.
-
I wrote a decent post about adepts with some good advice awhile back for all of literally one person, so might as well copy/paste and see if anyone else gets some value here.
They were specifically talking about the adept for biilly, but advice is pretty universal. Only more I'd add for the specifics is to say/confirm that deranking is very, very helpful since the pip conditions change (not sure why, as it takes more pips to rank up anyhow) across rank sets, with double pips at red ranks requiring the full 16 points from 4 irridescent emblems.
Here's that post:
I got mine in October... and have since then knocked out the other 70% of killer adepts I was missing too, with my final one last week (until the new DLC release anyhow)
Adept achievements are a ######### for sure, but they're all still do-able. Also way harder than they should be and ever designed thanks to changes in scoring and honestly would be better to just make it a damn 4K requirement already.
You do need to prep and accumulate offerings add-ons, likely fail a bunch, and really contemplate your strategy on each.
Though, IMO, Hillbilly is actually one of the easiest by far thanks to his strong power and perks. With my other adepts, I would've traded all 3 perks on most killers just to use Tinkerer instead if I could. Seriously. Tink is your bread and butter. Defend gens with your life and the rest will come. Or, well, their lives. The add-ons ain't what they use to be, but they're still gonna help for sure. My preference is for dad's boots but might be different playstyle.
But best advice I can offer really applies to all killer adepts:
Focus on a 12 hook game. The result always been guaranteed for me if I can pull that off.
Even with a hatch escape you can get merciless sometimes, but always slug to try and find that last survivor and/or locate hatch. Don't risk it. Nothing is worse than 20 minutes for an attempt thats just a tiny hair away from the scoring to nail merciless.
The longer the game the better for you. Even if you lose the last gen eventually, you get so many points for gens up after 9 minutes that you can usually pull off irri as long as you don't the gates open
Play dirty and rough as you need to. I recall chainsaw sprinting to the hook after every rescue, but alternate between targets, slugging occasionally. It's best to take one person out of the game quickly, but usually want to hook everyone once first if you can, to make sure you've got enough chances to play with your prey.
Prey for potatoes (so avoid peak playtimes where everyone is cheating with voicecomms)
Since you're specifically having an issue with chase points, if you're in a strong enough position with the last two survivors, then don't go for the easy kill. When you've got both located, switch between slugging each, letting them revive one another with the false hope of escape, but come down on them before either gets to the healthy state. The extra chases will really help you out, and should be chases ended quickly since you're coming down on them with such strong positioning.
-
What's amazing is how every weak ass argument people trot out in a defense of voice-coms also rationalizes the use of steroids in baseball or like wall-hacking in CSGO.
They're just those default excuses for cheating in most forms it takes---oh just that small "edge", what you could "probably" do anyhow, hell its needed, etc. etc. It's the given delusion that make cheating feel "okay" same as anywhere else. Thus desperately addicted users so entitled to their crutch that they're even self-righteous about berating anyone who dares dislike the naturally frustrating circumstances for being frustrating.
-
Sorry OP... the mob has spoken.
Its actually your fault that you don't like going up against all those matches where the other side is unreasonably boosted by something as extreme as instant information exchange and coordination in a game entirely designed and balanced assuming that players can't even ######### TYPE messages to each other at their own peril to express something as mundane as "TRAP RIGHT THERE".
I mean hey, the devs say its okay. Who cares how 500 bits of information adds up even with the most casual usage to result in players of any given skill level better than their actual abilities? Who cares if that makes it DE FACTO cheating?
I mean, sure, the players feel it and the frustrations there, but sure is fun for (those) survivors! Who cares if the killer playbase is radically drying up with people switching to survivor only or leaving this game enitrely? Who cares if killer queues are shorter when it only takes 1 killer for every 4 people playing survivor? Who cares if they've got to crunch the timing difference so much that literally half the skill rankings in this game are deemed irrelevant for matchmaking? Who cares if that amplifies the problem with even more frustrating matches and runs even more of the people left in a vicious cycle?
So... it's, like, good that you're leaving and stuff, because, like, you're just a snowflake and stuff. Surely nothing systemic here.
Clearly this game will thrive in popularity for all time, coasting on infinite goodwill.
-
@CaulDrohn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1811502#Comment_1811502
You have 75 perks and 22 different killers. What more variety do you need?
You heard him devs! Players don't need anymore variety. With 22 killers already, its time to stop cranking out DLC and cosmetics for fat cash injections that only pile up more problems.
You can officially focus on the major bugs and balance issues for a better game now. Variety is totally covered.
Damn good thing these devs aren't greedy at all!
🙄
-
@danielmaster87 said:
Remember when instaheals were nerfed and survivors got like a week or more, before they were actually nerfed, to capitalize on using all their un-nerfed instaheals? I sure do. You couldn't find a match without 1-3 instaheals.
But guess what happened when moris got nerfed? No heads up, just insta-nerfed. So game breaking survivor sided things get to stay in the game until the devs "get around to it", but the killer sided ones are top priority and must be removed without delay!
I can understand why they did this. Perhaps they learned their lesson with the instaheal nerf, not wanting everyone to unload their mori war chests all at once. That still doesn't make up for the double standard, but it is practical.
And of course, we all know that the key nerf is coming in the near future. It's a shame that keys couldn't have been nerfed at the same time as moris, but whatever because they'll get nerfed eventually. What I want is for keys to be insta-nerfed as well, with no heads up. If that doesn't happen like it did with the mori nerf, it will be proof in the minds of many including myself, that the devs are survivor sided. So don't let it happen.
But... we did know? I wasn't around during instaheal changes, so presumably the type of changes and when were disclosed there, but the actual fact of a mori change has been a given for awhile now.
They even had that survey dedicated to the idea and many direct statements about the agenda. It's the same way we already know they're going to target keys next (even if not knowing specifically how). Also explains why people were upset that they didn't do both at once, with both always being tethered together in discussions.
Also my experience was actually that people already were using them up like crazy in anticipation of the changes. I'm pretty sure you can find posts on the forums with other people describing the same observation too of killlers dropping em like its hot for at least a month now.
Besides, they're still pretty useful IMO . That's how I always used them as a killer (with rare exceptions).
THOUGH this reminds me..
So, on the subject of knowing stuff and making efforts to act before those changes...
anyone out there wanna help me crank out the "WHERE DID THEY GO" achievement before the upcoming key nerf?
😧