Elegant
Elegant
About
- Username
- Elegant
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Mc_Harty said:
Well it's getting there. Has more players now than at release.
That's because it's free to play right now and a lot of people are streaming it. Give it two weeks when the free to play is over and the dbd streamers aren't playing it anymore.
-
@Plu said:
Imagine paying for more grind and then not even getting what you wanted AND PAID FOR because of things out of your control, and then having no chances to get it back.
Great design.
Imafine getting annoyed that people who play the game significantly more than other people get more cosmetic rewards than people who barely play the game
-
It's not more popular because it's a terrible game. The game failed once massively and they didn't do much to fix the issues people had with the original version. The game is going to be dead again within two months. Hunter is brain dead easy and you have to play really really badly to lose a game.
-
The thing I want most from Freddy rework is for him to be fun to play and fun to play against. His problem now is that he's not very strong, but he's also not fun to play against at all. Which is why they couldn't just buff him. Hopefully they avoid a super annoying mechanic with his rework.
-
The only thing I would be ok with is if they allowed you to have 1 to 3 players you could put on an avoid list so you would never get matched with them. Anything more than that would lead to an easily abusable system. People would just rate great players poorly to avoid them or add all the good players to ignore lists. Letting you ignore a very small number of people (1-3) would let you avoid someone who is harassing you while not being too exploitable
-
I'm mostly excited for the release dates since we know almost everything that they are going to tell us. I'm hoping that the battle pass drops before Ghost Face. I also hope the anniversary event starts before then as well.
-
They can't make new game modes (except for short term ones for an event maybe) because they don't have enough players to fill both queues. It would result in queue times being ridiculous. Red rank killers can already have to wait 5+ minutes per game depending on the time of day. Adding another game mode would just make queue times even worse.
-
I wouldn't buy Deathgarden. It's going to be completely dead within a month or two.
-
@LCGaster said:
What if they simply DC because they lost a chase too quickly? The devs even said that they would like chases to be faster.
Disconnecting in the end ruins the game for your teammates, it is punishable in other games, it should be the same for this
In the games that punish people for disconnecting you have a lot of toxicity and what is usually referred to as "soft inting." Soft inting is when someone gets mad at the game, can't leave, and instead of just afking they just refuse to play the game out by doing anything and everything but helping their team or playing objectives. In games like LoL this is done by just running it down a late and split pushing no matter what is happening. Enemy in your base about to win? Push top. Same applies to any other multiplayer game i've played. Some form of soft inting or trolling is heavily prevalent in games where they punish disconnects. When you force someone to stay in a game they don't want to play, they aren't going to just play it out and be great teammates. They are going to suicide, troll, walk around the map doing nothing, assist the killer, etc. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be punishments for disconnecting. What I'm suggesting is that just punishing disconnects isn't going to fix the game's problems. The devs need to address the reasons why so many people disconnect and try to fix as many of those as they can. When fewer people want to disconnect, you will have far fewer disconnects or toxic games.
-
Cuz survivors can just suicide on hook and killer can go afk (and get some chasing points meanwhile if survivors farm).
I've been talking about this for a long time but no one one to listen to it. Purely just punishing disconnects and doing nothing to fix the reasons is just going to hurt, possibly even kill the game. But if the Devs want to focus on band-aid fixes instead of addressing their problems, then let them. Band-aids won't fix hemorrhaging wounds. Eventually the wound will kill them.
-
Map redesigns is probably the thing they need to work on the most. Aside from adding in another objective for survivors to do.
-
Let SWF play together but without voice programs.I think need to restrict voice programs in game. What do you think about it?
They can't do this. It's not possible. They would have to design ways to detect every single popular voip service and that would be a lot of pointless work for the Devs. Even if they did this the SWF could just use Discord on their phones and the Devs couldn't detect it at all. Also, tons of people play swf and it would hurt the playerbase a lot. SWF isn't that bad of a thing. They mostly just need QoL changes to the game and SWF will be a non-issue
-
They can't. Queue times would be far too long for this to ever be added. Especially at high ranks. High rank killers already have to wait for 5 or so minutes quite often to find a game. Ranked queue times would be ridiculous to a point that no one would play it.
-
I don't want them to have a benefit from using their own perk. Instead, I would rather them have a less impactful, but still nice, passive. Something like "5% increased heal speed while healing injured teammates" for claudette, or David could have something like "3% increased repair speed while injured" The numbers I gave are entirely arbitrary and could be tested for the best value. The idea is to give a character something passive that could draw people to different characters for a certain playstyle or build. But, it would also not force someone to play only a handful of characters. Ideally you would want to help benefit some non-meta builds with some cool passives that would make each survivor unique and could empower some builds that people could find fun.
-
The only time I would want a punishment for lobby dodging is if someone does it a bunch of times in a row. Then you could give them a few minute cooldown. But it doesn't affect gameplay at all. The only time I dodge lobbies is if the killer has horrible ping or if the survivors have 4 toolboxes. It's not a huge issue.
-
Battle pass is fine. It's not money grubbing or greedy. Go cry somewhere else
-
There's nothing they can really do unless people are just blatantly disconnecting or afking in the match. People can just purposely play badly to not safety pip and derank . They can't punish people for this because they have no way of knowing if they just had a bad streak of games, bad teammates, etc. They would end up punishing players who aren't deraking in some cases. The better solution is to figure out why players are deranking and try to address those issues.
-
Battle pass for sure. It's going to give me a reason to long on and grind out frustrating games. I haven't been playing the game a ton lately because it's just not super enjoyable with the lack of rewarding progression. But the battle pass will definitely make me play way more than I am now.
-
You will not get perma banned for disconnects. You would have to be extremely toxic (like death threat levels) or hack/cheat to get perma banned. Every other punishment is going to be a timed one that will run out at some point.
-
Camping only works if the rest of the teammates are dumb enough to let it work. If a killer fully camps a 1st hook then you have time to do 3 gens (if everyone goes and does 1) The killer loses points for being near a hooked survivor if there aren't other survivors in range. So they will not pip if they camp unless other survivors play dumb
-
@FayeZahara said:
if its free 2 play go ahead but it is not. Bhvr doing it for greed like what they did with the grind and overpriced cosmetics. 50% of community will support this and because they draw the line. The line can be crossed over and over until don't reckognize the project from when first bought it. Many people tried to hold them accountable to ######### actions but fanboys and girls won with there shallow puppy love of product. I'm just here to laugh like an evil villain and predict the next evolution.
"Once the battlepass is accepted so easily we will then implement the lootbox. But we will call them death hooks and can buy hooks in shop to open up. Since its not a box our whole audience won't even realize what we created. Bwhahahaha drown in those ######### dev practices and realize you want to buy lootboxes just to get a claudette voiceline of "lets get jiggy with it"
Your entire point is so laughable that it's not even worth addressing. You completely lost any and all credibility when you said "over priced cosmetics" and then moved into a huge slippery slop fallacy. You have a massively flawed argument and you need to fix it before it's worth taking seriously
You can't just assume that by adding a battle pass that it will move into more predatory practices. Assuming that is a literal flaw of argumentation and makes your argument super bad from the start. What you consider to be overpriced or greedy is entirely arbitrary and far from factual. The fact that it's in a game you paid for is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on whether or microtransactions are ok or not. The game needs money to keep it going. Without microtransactions games like this would get released and receive very few updates, if any at all. Cosmetics allow the devs to make money without harming the gameplay at all. That's exactly what a battle pass is. A completely fair way for them to make money while not harming the game in any way. You don't have to like it, but that's what games are going to do from now on. This isn't going to change and there is nothing you can do about it. If you hate it so much I would recommend you quit playing online games and stick to singleplayer games. Microtransactions and battle passes aren't going anywhere.
-
@Vlieger said:
I like the creativity, but don't think killers need something else to spend even more time doing when every second counts. The perk itself would also suffer from the same issue Iron Maiden has: once the survivor knows you have it they just won't use lockers.
So with it being limited to the lockers you would "trap" and the fact survivors would avoid lockers after knowing you have it.... you would MAYBE get 1 trap a game out of it.
Having them not use lockers could be a huge time saver tho. Don't have to check them
-
A better idea is it could just trap them in the locker. Preventing it from being opened from the inside.
-
@Volfawott said:
Honestly as long as they don't lock cosmetics into the battle pass that I won't be able to get anywhere else I'm good.
Normally every now and then I buy a stockpile of auric cells so if any cosmetics come out I could get what I need but if this battle pass comes out and things are locked it's going to be really annoying to keep having the stockpile and invest in the battle pass as well
I hope the opposite. The battle pass would be a complete waste of time for me if it didn't have exclusives. A simple fix to this would be to allow you to just purchase it with auric cells. That way you don't have to spend more money than you already have. You would just have to play the game and earn the skin. I hope no one would actually complain about having to grind out levels for the pass tho.
-
@TheGameZpro3 said:
I NEVER once understood the hate. Seriously, can anyone give me a reason other than "We don't want this game to be like Fortnite?"
It literally gives you things FOR FREE, if you don't want to pay for premium pass. And if you pay for premium pass, you're getting a great deal! As a poor gamer, I'm still hyped for the fact this could get in the game.
There is no legit reason for hating it. It's literally just people who hate microtransactions and get angry at them for being in a game that they had to pay some money for. They completely ignore the fact that it's entirely cosmetic and will have zero impact on gameplay. People will complain no matter what and you just have to laugh at and ignore the idiots who truly believe that this is a predatory or awful idea.
-
It's not a "predatory practice." You do not need to have costumes/skins to do well in the game. It's not like a lootbox where you can't guarantee that you get an item. You buy a battlepass and you play the game to earn things within the battlepass. The fact that you had to spend money to buy the game originally is irrelevant to whether or not a game should have a battle pass or cosmetic microtransactions. They negatively impact the game in zero ways and only give people more things in the game to have or look forward to grinding. You need to get out of the mindset of 1992 and understand that these kinds of practices aren't going to go anywhere. No matter how much you complain about it, or how much you want to go back to the 90s, it isn't going to happen. You need to move on.
-
They 100% should add a battle pass. It will give me more reason to play and grind the game. Without something like that, I will play hundreds of hours less than I otherwise would play. It wouldn't harm the game at all. It would only give people things to grind for. People like you need to stop being so anti-microtransaction/anti paying for cosmetic/similar stuff in games. It's not going away and it never will. You have to come to terms with the fact that it is here to stay. Instead, focus on the microtransactions that are very harmful and legitimately make the gameplay experience worse. Eastern style mmos are a good example of this. Not battle passes.
-
I would focus on the reasons that people disconnect and attempt to fix those before implementing a punishment for disconnecting. Just adding the punishments is going to make the game a lot more frustrating for a lot of people and will likely result in a smaller playerbase. Issues like nerfing/reworking nurse, balancing the ridiculous building loops in a lot of maps, reworking Haddonfield, adding in more objectives for survivors to do so games didn't feel super rushed/micro-managey for a killer, and probably some other things that could improve the game's QoL. Doing things like that would be my top priority over anything else. Would drastically increase the game's longevity and would help a ton with people playing for longer amounts of time.
-
@CallMeRusty420 said:
Tbh I just say make the perk operate as it does now but the survivor goes into the Broken state for a period of time to help balance it out since they'd be stuck as an injured 1 hit KO for a short time before being able to be healed
This would be pretty irrelevant because survivors rarely go and heal after proccing MoM in the first place. It just allows them to extend the loop/chase for a longer period of time. Even if they did get away, they don't usually heal because of the other effect that MoM has for healing up to full.
-
Easy solution. Slug the survivor who got unhooked and then chase the person who unhooked them. They wouldn't get the stack because it's a safe unhook and that would result in a minimum of two people not working on gens. If someone wants to revive the slug then that's 3 people minimum not working on gens. The change is a great idea and in no way will it make the game worse off than it does now.
-
@Tru3Lemon said:
New game mode i hope xd
A separate game mode would be a bad idea. It would split/divide the number of players queuing for each one. That would result in longer queue times. Especially if one of the game modes was a lot less popular than the other. No one would want to wait for 10+ minutes every match.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/489638#Comment_489638
Ultra Rare add-ons don't have to be new, they can just convert existing add-ons into ultra rares.
That would be fine. Though Nurse is getting addon reworks (if I recall correctly) so they would probably just make a new one for her.
-
I really just want a battle pass or whatever version of a battle pass they want to add. I want a reason to grind out more games and play out all the games. I actually think it would help curb out some of the DCs as well. People want that juicy battle pass xp. I think dbd mobile could be cool but not if it isn't cross platform. That would just force them to spend resources on that game instead of the current game. That never ends well (looking at you Marvel Heroes) Blood market is a cool idea but it's not something i would get really hyped for. I'm mostly hyped for a battle pass and Ghostface (Scream is what got me into horror and has a really special place in my heart.) I hope the battlepass comes out before the next chapter. I think it would be cool to release it the week before or event two weeks before. As long as they add one I will be happy though.
-
They would need to nerf billy before adding an ultra rare addon (likely) and Nurse would need a full rework before adding it. Nurse with ultra rare addon would end in so many disconnects lmao
-
There is literally nothing they can do. They can't control facebook posts to take it down. Nor can they track anyone within the group's accounts for dbd. The only thing you can do is change your username on Steam and hope they forget about you.
-
The one thing I don't want is for it to be an event that heavily encourages farming. In previous events everyone just wanted to farm for event currency and it made the game not very exciting. I also don't want a repeat of the event where they put out 6 skins and were going to only let us earn one of them. I just want an event that doesn't hard the normal gameplay and also offers a consistent grind/reward for playing a lot. I don't want to be able to play for a day or two and earn everything. That makes the event feel kinda lame.
-
It's Ghostface. Gameplay has already been leaked and the sounds are attached to his stealth/stalk mechanic
-
No. Self care is pretty bad as it is. There's no need to nerf it. If you run sloppy butcher/apply mangled they have to waste a LOT of time self caring. That's a huge time waster that they waste instead of doing gens.
-
In high ranks you have to have a good understanding of what good survivors are going to do. They are far less likely to mess up loops/fall for easy mind games. You have to be a little more creative/manage your time a lot better than you otherwise would have to. Also expect at least 2 or 3 people to have adrenaline. Have to know when to continue a chase and when to give up a chase. If you just tunnel someone you find it can often cost you the game. It's not worth chasing someone for 3 or 4 gens. In red ranks as killer you just have to learn to play efficiently or you will have a bad time.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/475925#Comment_475925
People will disconnect just because they got downed first.
People like that shouldn't be allowed to play. Losing is part of the game. If they don't like it, they can pack their bags and leave for a different game as far as I am concerned. They're not entitled to ruin four other people's match just because they want to win every single time.
I don't know about you, but I sure as ######### do not enjoy having 2 hours worth of 3v1's as either survivor or killer, because some scrub got downed first and rage quits like a petulant child. It has seriously effected my enjoyment of the game for the worse. I will be happy when those type of people will finally get the punishment they deserve. There is no good reason to act like that and there's nothing this game, nor any non pay-to-win PvP game could do to satisfy these people.
Those people will just suicide on 1st hook instead of disconnecting. They aren't going to be better teammates because you add a disconnect punishment.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/475913#Comment_475913
I want teammates I can rely on and opponents who can handle a loss, as opposed to teammates who will leave at the first sign of trouble and opponents who throw a hissy fit when I take advantage of their mistakes.
Punishing disconnects isn't going to give you this. It's just going to give you a different kind of bad teammate in a lot of your games.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/475907#Comment_475907
Bad comparison. Here's a better one.
Imagine if they banned people from football if they left the field when they didn't like the other team's tactics. Oh, wait, they absolutely would and have, because you don't get to do that.
A better example would be imagine that they have rules to punish people for leaving that football example you gave, but didn't have any kind of punishment or way of tracking how the players behave on the field. So, instead of playing the football game out the angry player or players decide to fake an injury and leave the field as soon as they get angry or, the angry player decides to fumble the ball every time he got it, or let the other team run past him with the ball every time, or even blocked his teammates into the other team. Without rules to enforce this kind of bad behavior, it's kind of pointless to just punish them for leaving.
-
@Mochan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/475851#Comment_475851
Pretty soon you won't have any survivors to catch, is that what you want?
People don't understand this. They don't understand how many players this game has, the fact that it has already lost players, or the fact that it will lose even more players if people get mad and are forced to stay in games where they are mad. Let them see what happens though.
-
@TheBean said:
@Elegant It is a choice.
They went into a lobby knowing what the game is and who "can" play it.
If they play survivor then they don't have control on how the killer plays. So choosing to leave early is that players choice. They do so by disconnecting, they get punished... they do it in the match by taking the hook, then they made that choice.
If they choose not to play anymore cause they can't accept the game as it is, then they leave.
Why do we want them here playing? Because them DCing now, cause they aren't having fun is ruining the fun of others. So why do we want to cater to them?
If players want more control on how the others play against them, then play killer more. The killer can control more of the match. However nobody can force anyone to have fun.
If they don't find the game fun then don't play it. They can't try to justify ruining the fun for others by them not having fun.
So I don't understand the reasoning of this whole post. If you don't find the game fun then why are you playing? Because you only find certain aspects of the game fun?.... You take the game as it is... you play or you don't.
This is just and incredibly dumb post and isn't worth addressing. Re-read my post and try to better comprehend what I've already typed out. Everything you ask has already been answered in some way.
-
@Bug_Reporter said:
I dont mind if they suicide as long as i can get my BBQ stack before that.
Understandable. But a solution to that could have been added long ago by just giving the killer a BBQ stack if someone DCs. Would still be the exact same as if someone suicides and you don't have to waste a hook/the time it took to chase/down/hook them. Would actually be worse for the killer after the change.
-
@Orion said:
Let them quit. What use is a large playerbase if half of them don't really play the game?
Long queue times will actually kill the game. No one is going to sit there for 10 minutes as killer just to play a single game. Without those players the game dies.
-
@tt_ivi_99 said:
Of course It wont solve the problemt, but I'll have my BBQ stacks 🙃
You right
-
@TheBean said:
I'd rather them stick it out and suicide on the hook at least they finished out the match.
That doesn't really solve any of the problems though. People are still leaving the game. They just use a different way to do so. It's mostly irrelevant how they leave the game if they are leaving the game early.
-
@xChrisx said:
The problem is not me disconnecting. But is the reason of when im leaving.
Basically when i cant have fun, vs nurses, killers with addons op and mori. They should fix this issue not the disconnect itself
I fully agree. They are just attempting band-aid at this point. Punishing disconnects is just going to end up shrinking the player base by a pretty good amount. I also predict a lot more people to start playing super toxic killers/builds to try and get survivors to disconnect. Playing moris every time they get a chance or playing insta down huntress, or nurse every game. People, especially in this game, are incredibly toxic and this wouldn't surprise me at all. It's going to end up hurting the playerbase in a pretty noticeable way (In my opinion at least. Impossible to know yet) The main thing they need to focus on, like you said, is why people are disconnecting in the first place and address those issues. That would take a lot of work though and I don't think they want to deal with the effort and work it would take to fix the issues.
-
@Bug_Reporter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/475737#Comment_475737
What did u expect? There arent many top tier killers, most of the killers will just get looped, i'll get annoyed and survivors will get camped, then proceed to DC on the hook. So the cycle continues...
I'm not complaining about your killer choice. Just pointing out that when you play two of the killers that people don't find enjoyable to face, they are going to want out of the game as fast as possible. So you might have to decide between the annoying killers who often result in disconnects/unfun games, or not playing those annoying killers and having more enjoyable games. It's a decision that is forced by the design of the game. It's really hard to have an enjoyable game for both the survivor and the killer. For killers to win they often have to play in ways that no survivor enjoys. And when survivors do well it means that the killer is likely going to be annoyed and not have fun. This is the reason for so many disconnects. Sadly they aren't really doing anything to address the problem. Just trying to ignore the issue and come up with band-aid fixes.