Fibijean
Fibijean
About
- Username
- Fibijean
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
It's a really creepy track, but there are licensing issues and also it's not just the scare factor that they're going for, it's recognition. There's just no getting around the fact that the original theme is iconic as hell in a way that tracks from the sequels, no matter how modern or good they are in their own right, can never come close to.
-
@Rebel_Raven I guess I would hope that that's what PTBs are for? So that you can have 2 weeks or so, that people can choose to participate in for testing purposes or just opt out, where all survivor players are at the same level, even if that level is more powerful than killers. And that way, hopefully, the devs can receive actual feedback and can see more easily what changes need to then be made for balance. But if solo survivors were buffed and then survivors and killers were balanced at the same time, I feel like the effects of the survivor balance would get somewhat overshadowed by the overall balance and it would be more difficult to work out what's working and what isn't than it would be if we addressed one problem at a time.
-
He may be the only killer that takes time to swap between "modes" as well as having to charge his power, but he's definitely not the only one who has several seconds between using his power and being able to hit survivors. Wraith is probably the best example - he has to take time to cloak and uncloak before he can do mode-specific interactions like hitting survivors. It's true, however, that all the others either have to charge their power before using it or have to take time to switch between modes, but not both. The only explanation I can think of is that the Doctor's power would be far too overpowered if it didn't have a charge time and he could just shock people instantly and indefinitely, and as for taking time to switch modes, a) the animation needs to time to play, because it would just be weird if his weapon instantly appeared or disappeared from his hand, and b) it's a fundamental principle of interaction design that you need to give someone time to react if the thing they're interacting with changes, otherwise the brain doesn't register the event properly and it feels unfair. So the survivors get a second and a half for their brains to register "okay, he's switching modes" so they have a chance to react before getting hit.
And it's not like he's underpowered because of it. Like yeah, it's a little annoying, but he's still a solid mid- to high-tier killer so clearly his strengths more than compensate for weaknesses like this one.
-
@twistedmonkey While I agree that NOED doesn't need a nerf, I think you're seriously underestimating the cost of countering it. The time cost isn't how long it takes to cleanse all the totems, it's the time it takes to find all 5, and if multiple people are cleansing, the time it takes to say, cleanse 3 and then find the other 2 broken ones to confirm that they are, in fact, broken. Takes several minutes at least, if you're lucky. More often it takes at least half the game, assuming you don't have a perk like small game to help. Obviously it's quicker then, but most people don't run small game.
-
- It depends what you mean by advantageous. I definitely think that SWF has an advantage over solo survivors in most cases - their downfall being that they tend to be altruistic to a fault - however I don't think that SWF necessarily provides a significant advantage over the killer, although it can definitely be used as such.
- In my opinion, the main problem is people who use SWF to be toxic. It's because of toxic groups that even the mention of SWF has such negative connotations in the first place, and killers feel the need to lobby dodge whenever they see a SWF group enter the lobby. I know that the ramifications are a lot harsher overall on killers, but it is also really frustrating for people who have no interest in ruining the experience for the killer and just want to play survivor like normal, except... with friends.
- I think there are two methods that would work. @friendlykillermain 's idea about the perk slots would work towards improving balance, I think, however it would likely not go very far towards cultivating a more positive atmosphere overall, since people would most likely feel cheated and, as was already mentioned, would probably just try to circumvent it. So it's good in theory, but in practice doesn't solve the issue, only makes it a little more inconvenient.
Although I think @Rebel_Raven raises some valid points, I have issues with their solutions. No killer, given the choice, wants to play against a SWF group. Labelling them in the lobby, or preventing them from joining altogether, would just kill SWF and cause the same problems as above, but worse - people would feel cheated, it would increase queue times all round, and the issue wouldn't be solved because survivors would just circumvent the system in the same way, except now they're pissed off and therefore more likely to take out their frustrations on the killer by being bad sports. The bloodpoints idea does have some merit, however as Raven themselves mentioned, not everyone who plays SWF takes advantage of its strengths, and so it's not consistent whether the killer is being compensated for points they lost to an imbalanced system, or just receiving free bloodpoints that they didn't deserve (on top of the approximately double points they already earn compared to individual survivors). In theory, points could be awarded on a case-by-case basis rather than just a flat rate, but that sort of thing is very difficult to measure accurately.
Personally, I am firmly behind the idea of closing the gap between SWF and solo queue and only then addressing any nerfs/buffs that need to be applied. For starters, it's not only much easier to balance around one standard than two, but when all survivors are on a relatively equal playing field, changes that need to be made become much clearer in the first place, without all the "but then SWF is too overpowered" or "but then solo queue is too underpowered". Furthermore, it's the only solution in which SWF teams aren't singled out, and therefore are less likely to feel cheated and respond with increased toxicity. I haven't thought it through enough to have specific ways of closing the gap in mind, but I definitely think that it's the best way of reducing the power of SWF without making anyone feel like they're having something taken away from them. And that goes for killers, too - the main reason for not nerfing survivors right now such that SWF becomes balanced is that solo queue survivors would then be too weak. I think if SWF and solo survivors were at the same power level, survivors as a whole could be more safely nerfed, and then killers wouldn't feel the same animosity towards SWF and, more importantly, they wouldn't feel helpless playing against them.
-
@Master said:
@aarongai said:
How many survivors do you see running a map in your games? I'm gonna guess maybe 1 out of 20 games you'll find a person using the map, and if you ask them why, they'll probably admit they're just using it to get extra bloodpoints for discovering objectives.So here's a rework idea to actually make the map useful:
- Maps no longer reveal discovered objects on the map while holding M2
- Maps instead gain a Chart function. Right click any nearby object while holding a map to Chart it, revealing its aura to all teammates
- Map rarity / add-ons can increase the max number of objects that can be Charted at one time
- Charges are expended for every object Charted
- Bloodpoints are awarded the first time a teammate interacts with something you Chart
- Dropping the map will cause Charted object auras to disappear
Benefits of the rework:
- Gives the map utility that is noticeable immediately to you and your team, helping prioritize your objectives
- By granting bloodpoints only when a teammate interacts with something you Chart, you're rewarded for doing something useful rather than just collecting bloodpoints for every object you run into
- Possibly allow even pallets, windows, hooks, and lockers to be Charted, which could indirectly save your teammates' lives
Nice idea and doesnt buff SWF.
I assume that the charted objective is only highlighted for a certain time and will go back to normal then
I assumed that it was more of a Third-Seal type mechanic, where you would only see the auras of the last however many objects you charted, but they would be revealed indefinitely. It is a good idea in terms of closing the gap between SWF and solo queue (which I think is the actual solution to the SWF problem, because it's a lot easier to nerf/buff survivors to a point of balance if you only have to work to one standard instead of two separate ones).
-
On the one hand, as others have mentioned, they're not technically your teammates, (unless they're actually your friends or something) so in that sense you have no obligation to them. However, you do lose benevolence points for leaving them behind, so if you care about ranking up that's something to consider, not to mention the bloodpoints you might have gotten for the unhook (which obviously is only worth it if you then escape). So even if you do choose to be selfish, there are consequences.
In terms of emblems, you will probably lose more for letting your teammates die than you will for not escaping. So if you care about ranking up more than you do about bloodpoints, you might want to seriously consider going for the save regardless of circumstances. (Anyone who actually knows the numbers, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) If the hook is close-ish to a gate, if the killer isn't facecamping, if they're not even close to the hook, if you have borrowed time, if the hooked person has sprint burst or an unactivated adrenaline, if you have perks or items that will allow you to heal them quickly and/or make a quick escape... all of those are situations in which you can usually unhook someone and both escape (assuming they're not a moron who runs straight into the killer or something). So in those cases it's usually worth it, plus it sets your mind at ease.
Which leads me to the final point. It is never okay to insult or harass someone in the chat no matter what they did, and as we already established you are under no moral obligation to save them. It's not unjust for you to leave them behind. However, letting someone die who you could have saved (you will notice I'm not talking about trying to save them when it's obviously just going to end in both of your deaths), especially if you don't show any remorse for it, will be interpreted by most people as a statement of your character. They may not trust you if you meet again in a future game, or may even hold a grudge and feel the need to take revenge by leaving you to die. If you're okay with the other players thinking that you're the kind of person who wouldn't risk their own life to save a stranger's, and the potential relational ramifications don't bother you, then there's no ethical reason for you to be concerned.
TL;DR: From a moral standpoint, the answer is yes, it's okay. But there are valid reasons to save them anyway. It comes down to your own personal convictions (should the way you behave in a game be informed by your real-life ideals, do you even care about being kind or self-sacrificial to strangers under any circumstances) and your priorities (is doing well in the game more important than being virtuous, do you care more about points, ranking up, or making friends). You should weigh up these things and do what you consider to be the right thing (or most beneficial thing, depending on where your priorities lie) under the circumstances.
-
I understand your frustration, but it's a fairly easy fix. Just count the totems as you cleanse them, and make sure you get all 5. You already know that most killers run NOED nowadays, and it has a hard counter if you decide you want to counter it. So cleanse any totems you see, take note of broken ones, and make sure all 5 are taken out by the time the gates are powered. Make it a priority if you're up against a Wraith, Myers, Freddy, Nurse, or other killers who typically run NOED.
Also, pay attention to their other perks to work out the likelihood of their having NOED. There are a lot of ways to figure out what perks the killer is running. Most killer perks which affect you directly notify you of their presence (e.g. all the other hex perks, Sloppy Butcher, Overwhelming Presence, Make Your Choice) or make themselves obvious when they activate (e.g. Iron Grasp, Bamboozle, Franklin's Demise, and to a lesser extent Tinkerer). If you're the obsession and you're not running anything like Decisive Strike that increases your chances of being the obsession, then you know that the killer is running an obsession perk like Play With Your Food, Save the Best for Last, Rancour or Dying Light (the latter two of which also make themselves obvious to the obsession in other ways - seeing the killer's aura when a generator is completed, and doing altruistic actions faster, respectively). Still others, such as BBQ & Chilli, Nurse's Calling, Bitter Murmur, or Territorial Imperative can be fairly accurately guessed at if the killer appears to know exactly where you are after someone is hooked, when you're healing, when a generator is completed, or when you enter the basement.
All this to say that while yes, NOED is a strong perk when it works and can be a total game changer, especially for a particularly altruistic team, it's actually not overpowered when you think about the fact that it can be hard countered with a bit of effort and the killer can't really do much to protect it - not to mention you get bloodpoints for countering it - and on top of that, if you pay close enough attention sometimes you won't even need to bother with the counter because you already know they're not running it anyway.
-
@CrowS said:
@Fibijean said:
...
Furthermore, the kind of tunnelling you're describing isn't really an issue. Obviously, it makes sense to go after the first survivor you find, especially if they're injured already. The style of tunnelling that most people take issue with is when the killer tunnel-visions on the unhooked survivor, ignoring everything else in their path. Someone else could be standing right under their feet and they will ignore that person and keep going after the injured survivor, not because they're injured (they could easily turn the bodyblocker into an equally appealing target by that standard) but because they're easier to kill having already been hooked....
You either don't play Killer, or you are terrible at it.
Hitting another Survivor in blocking your pursuit let's the first injured Survivor escape, and leaves in you in the same, OR WORSE, position as you started in ... chasing an injured Survivor.
Why would anyone do that? Injuring the 2nd Survivor restarts the chase from the beginning (slowing down the Killer), AND triggers any Perks the Survivor is holding.
Survivors working together could keep this loop going infinitely by healing each other and switching off who is being chased.
Hell, if it's a Claudette, they don't even need another player to heal, 2 of them can be working generators the whole time.
Put it this way; if it were a good idea for Killers to do, Survivors wouldn't want us to do it.
To be fair, it could be to do with the fact that I main Doctor, who has the best tracking of all the killers. So it's very rare for someone to truly escape a chase.
I don't play killer at top ranks, but the truth is the majority of survivor teams below red ranks aren't coordinated enough to keep up a healing loop and repair generators at the same time. And if you're not repairing generators, unless you're playing perfectly the killer actually has the advantage. Even if you are playing perfectly and no one's getting hooked, if all four of you are trying to distract, the most you can do is hold the game hostage.
But the reason why I do it in general is because it weakens the team as a whole. Survivors can only safely bodyblock once, so it means it's easier to hook people if I've already injured some of their teammates, who are also then more hesitant about going for the save knowing they can't take hits. I usually run nurse's calling, so I see when they're healing and nip that right in the bud, and there are a lot of killer perks which make it advantageous to keep survivors injured for various reasons and harder for them to heal (thanatophobia, sloppy butcher, bloodhound, nurse's calling, to name a few). I don't even mind that much if they manage to heal, because it takes time that they aren't using to repair gens. But I've noticed that less people are running self care since the healing nerfs, so you'd need a coordinated team to be consistently healing for that strategy to work in the first place. Again, maybe this doesn't apply to top tier survivors, but it works for the majority.
Long story short, if they're injured, they're usually wasting more time healing and distracting than I am chasing them, and their injuries can work even more to my advantage depending on my build. I'm not saying it's the only way to do things or even the most effective way, but it does often work against all but the most coordinated of survivor teams and has the added benefit of sportsmanship.
(As a side note, I know that some killer mains like to think that all survivors are ######### who only play to make the killer's life miserable, and you seem to be one of them. There are people like that, sure, but it's not true that "survivors" in general get upset over killers employing effective strategies. In fact, if anything, I see more killers complaining about how all survivors are toxic or getting upset over things like looping, than I do entitled survivors who complain about killers being OP. I'll admit that my experience may be different to yours - all I'm saying is be careful in your generalisations.)
(Another side note along the same lines as the above: most people don't get upset when they're fairly beaten, but they will get upset when they feel like they were beaten unfairly or didn't have much of a chance. That's what's at the root of complaints about toxicity on both sides. But that's a whole other discussion!)
-
For starters, "tunnelling generators" is pretty easily countered, a) by several perks designed for that exact purpose (overcharge, pop goes the weasel, etc.), b) by simply searching the area properly - most survivors when they hear you coming will not leave the area, but hide close by until you leave, and c) by using strategies such as the "3-gen method" . Hard tunnelling has no direct counter - you can try to bodyblock or distract the killer, but you can't force them to take the bait.
Furthermore, the kind of tunnelling you're describing isn't really an issue. Obviously, it makes sense to go after the first survivor you find, especially if they're injured already. The style of tunnelling that most people take issue with is when the killer tunnel-visions on the unhooked survivor, ignoring everything else in their path. Someone else could be standing right under their feet and they will ignore that person and keep going after the injured survivor, not because they're injured (they could easily turn the bodyblocker into an equally appealing target by that standard) but because they're easier to kill having already been hooked.
The only time I really consider this playstyle okay is if they're running for an exit gate and tunnelling the injured survivor means the difference between two escapes or an escape and a kill. In any other case, yes it's efficient, but arguably no more so than any other method, and yes it can be fun to play mercilessly. But no one enjoys being knocked out in the first half hour of a Monopoly game and having to watch everyone else continue without them - it's the same thing. It may be fun or lucrative for you, but you can't deny that it's both unkind and unsportsmanlike.
-
TBH I figured as much. No one who's serious says "fun bags" lmao. But I was concerned by the people who seemed to be seriously in agreement. And I generally would rather look like a fool for responding seriously to a joke than ignore someone who's genuinely asking for input.strikerfreak12x said:What's hilarious is how everybody thought I was dead serious.
Not that it'd be bad to add something like that cause as I said, slasher flicks usually do include boobies and stuff. But I was only joking around lmao. Aesthetic wise the only thing I'm fr complaining about is Kate Denson's hair that decides to go on short vacations all the way across the map lol. -
I don't have a problem hitting survivors out the gate, but sometimes I'm letting them go and they just won't. Like I hit them into dying state and they want to stay and farm. What I usually do there is pick them up, and let them struggle off, but I walk right up to the exit and stand with it on my left, so when they struggle off they automatically fall out the gate. You used to be able to just drop them out the exit but for some reason that doesn't work anymore.
-
You should also be able to get protection points/progress towards the achievement by taking hits when a killer is carrying someone near a hook (i.e. body blocking) though I haven't confirmed this personally so anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis I don't know exactly what the threshold is for receiving a ban (as in, what percentage of matches you have to DC to get in trouble), but once you do, for first offence it's one week, then two weeks, then four weeks, then it's a permaban. They only skip stages in very rare cases where they decide that the offence is really severe (say, if you played 200 games and DC'ed every single one of them).
-
@No_Cluie_Louis If you mean on console, as I said I think they're working towards implementing the same ban system as on PC. If you're talking about PC, that's just not true.
-
@MakoFenrir The option needs to be there because sometimes it's literally the only thing you can do, if the game is bugged or being held hostage. Or, if an irl emergency comes up and you have to leave your computer, sometimes it's kinder to your teammates to just DC rather than go afk, get caught, and let them risk their lives trying to save someone who isn't there.
However, using it to ragequit is selfish, childish and ruins the experience for everyone you're playing with. Not only is the killer denied points, but more importantly (if you're a survivor) it lessen's your team's chances of survival in two ways. One, you're not there to do objectives, but they still have to do all 5 generators as though there were 4 active players, and two, you're not distracting the killer and buying them time. So it's not fair to the other survivors or the killer. If you're DC'ing as killer, you're wasting your add-ons and your own and everyone else's offerings. DCing is punishable because the person is hurting other people, because they're a selfish child who can't handle losing gracefully.
-
Yeah, the event is messing with gen placement a bit. Because the viscerous cankers spawn in generator locations, if there are a lot of offerings burned sometimes there's barely room for 7 generators and 5-7 plants, so you get weird stuff like this.
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 I agree that it's not exactly the same thing, because one is tied to a social issue and the other is purely about people getting their rocks off, but I think what @Khroalthemadbomber is saying is that they're both about sexualising characters who don't need to be sexualised. It's just not necessary and distracts from the main point of the game. I think representation might be a bigger issue if they had said that such-and-such a character was hetereosexual or whatever, but sex and sexuality just aren't a part of the lore in any way which is why both the idea of sexualising characters and the idea of assigning them sexual orientations are more or less irrelevant.
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 I don't know what they have on consoles at the moment, and I can't explain how it works code-wise to you, but what you're describing is exactly what the system does on PC at the moment, and I believe they're working to implement it on consoles as well. Bans for DC are based on your ratio of games played to games DC'ed. The game can detect whether you quit the game using the menu or not, as opposed to a crash or power loss or internet issues, and it only affects your "DC count" if you disconnect manually using the ingame menu. So if you DC because your internet is bad or you lose power to your machine, that won't put you in danger of a ban, but ragequitting still does.
-
If you want to ogle digital women with huge bouncing breasts, let me assure you there are many, many games out there (some with slasher elements) that will suit your tastes perfectly.
Dead by Daylight is not one of them.
If you're wondering what I think of shirtless David, I think it fits with his character. A lot of boxers fight shirtless, because it's easier for movement. That cosmetic is David's "fighting outfit". Similarly, I don't have an issue with Kate being curvy, because it's realistic. Like David, her design is not innately sexual just because people choose to sexualise it. Another example is Meg - she has a muscular, athletic build, because it fits her character. The point is, with the characters as they currently are, some are more attractive than others but all of them could be real people. What you seem to be asking for is gigantic balloon breasts which bounce around like rubber balls at the slightest touch. That's not realistic, it's a sexual fantasy. And while you're welcome to create sexual fantasies of your own out of the characters in the game, DbD itself doesn't sexualise its characters because that's not what it's about. It's about real people fighting for their lives under horrific circumstances, not creating jackoff material for players.
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@CoolAKn said:
He was originally going to be released with Kate, but her release got delayed. As someone pointed out, perhaps Leatherface was added by himself to have an even number of Killers to Survivors (since the game released with 3 killers and 4 survivors, each DLC adding one each). The only exception is Bill (PC only), which makes one more survivor than killer.they need to add a survivor to Consoles only and add the perks to pc as they did for consoles.
They're not going to add a consoles-only survivor. I agree that it's unnecessary for Bill to be PC exclusive, but PC is their native platform. It's always going to take priority over console.
-
Isn't there already a ban system in place for people who commonly DC on purpose? I think they're working to implement it on consoles if they haven't already.
-
Other people have said everything about how unsportsmanlike and selfish it is, so I need not repeat them. What I will add, though, is you need to rework your thinking. Don't think of it as an opportunity for you to be humiliated - think of it as an opportunity for you to get better. If the survivors loop and teabag you, joke's on them, because all they're doing in the long run is teaching you how to counter toxicity. In fact you should feel sorry for them if anything, because they clearly live sad, empty lives to get such sadistic enjoyment out of tormenting a stranger online.
Playing against people who are better than you is the quickest way to get better at the game. The last time I played killer against a bunch of survivors who just looped and stunned and DS'ed and juked me the whole game, I got really pissed off. Man, I hated those guys. What #########. But then I thought, you know what, they're actually helping me to be a better player, by forcing me to work out strategies to counter that kind of play. My skills are improving much faster doing this than they would be if all the survivors just ran in straight lines, threw down pallets 20 metres away from me and blew up generators right and left. So who's the real winner in the long term, me or them?
I feel I need to clarify, this is not me condoning toxic behaviour on either side, and I'm not trying to come off high and mighty. Just using a personal example to prove the point that it's not about the other players, it's about how you choose to think about it. And DC'ing because you're not winning isn't doing anyone any favours, least of all you.
-
@Dreamnomad That's interesting because I find the opposite to be true - I feel more in control of my destiny as survivor. Sure, as killer it's easier to ensure that you get the hooks that are there, but you can't ensure six hooks - i.e. one full vial - by yourself. You have to rely on at least 3 of the survivors to also burn offerings. Whereas as survivor, yes there's more competition and it's a bit of luck who finds the plants first, but at least you can get enough plants to spawn for one full vial without relying on other people to burn offerings.
-
Definitely survivor, especially as the event ends - the more people reach the cap, the less competition you'll have, and you only need one offering (yours) to spawn enough plants for one vial. If you can, I would recommend SWF, so you can coordinate and work together (i.e. harvest the same plant at the same time) so there's enough serum to go around.
-
@juntaru I assumed that would be the case, it made more sense to me, but I'd heard a lot of people saying otherwise. As I said, I can't personally confirm either way because I haven't reached the cap yet.
-
@tengu No, I believe as it currently stands, survivors who burn offerings only get points whenever a nectar plant is harvested by them or someone else - 4k per plant. Killers get points whenever they hook someone on an active event hook - 5k per hook. Survivors don't get points for hooks, and killers don't get points for plants. However, killers apparently (can't personally confirm since I haven't reached the cap yet) can still get points for hooking once they reach the vial cap, whereas survivors can't get any points after reaching the cap, even if they burn offerings and someone else harvests the plants.
-
@akbays35 Too many pronouns/acronyms, lol. Which game are you referring to that has a player base that's twice more than... StarCraft 2? Which game has a stable player base? DbD?
If that's what you're trying to say, my point was that it would very quickly not have a stable player base if half the world couldn't actually play the game anymore without getting unplayable levels of lag.
-
Killers like Nurse, Doctor, Hag, Trapper, Spirit, Huntress and Clown already have mechanics for breaking loops. But if you're not playing one of those, couldn't you try running Beast of Prey? I think it would be a bit OP to make its effect standard kit for all killers, but the perk was designed specifically for this reason - it makes your movements less predictable in situations like you described where you're stuck in a loop for a while. If you stay in a chase - which isn't difficult in small loops like the killer shack - you can achieve bloodlust 1 fairly easily and then from that point your stain is invisible. No need to rework the visual design of the shack or the haybales.
-
I don't have an issue with most of the maps, but some of those ideas do sound pretty cool. The only problem I can see with actually implementing them is the devs reuse the same mechanics over and over for a reason. It's easier and takes less work, so they can deliver these new chapters every 3 months as promised. But it would be cool to have more maps with overground/underground sections, or ditches and caves. Springfield is one of my favourite maps for that reason. But it depends on their ideas for the chapter as well, because to have specific landscape features on the map would have to fit conceptually with the chapter design.
-
@akbays35 Again, I suspect that was much easier because they built that into DG's business model from the start. So it was written into the code of the game, and they had dedicated staff for it. Plus, DG only has servers in the US, Europe and Asia. DbD's player base is much bigger, so they would need more servers than DG ever had if they don't want to lose a bunch of players (which DG wasn't in danger of because it was a new game to start with).
-
Y'all forgot Hex: The Third Seal. i don't think anyone ever uses it ever, except for cases of morbid curiosity.
-
Indeed, where are you at @friendlykillermain ?
-
@Jed said:
Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?The point people are making is not that dedicated servers are objectively worse. I don't think anyone's arguing that. The point is that for the specific situation of DbD, they cost a lot of time and money, because the game wasn't designed for them. Plus, there are disadvantages, for example if you live somewhere remote that isn't close to any regional servers (assuming they have the money and manpower to even run regional servers in the first place).
-
@Sythalin So you just decided to skim over the rest of my comment where I actually asked serious questions about your topic? Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there with all those claims that you just want to have an actual productive discussion.
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 Did you read my comment? I explained there why it doesn't make any logical sense to think that the devs lied to us about this, because there are other ways of telling what the statistics they have access to are based on their decisions, not just what they say.
-
@Gunmech04 said:
Tsulan said:
Gunmech04 said:@Cetren said:
shyguyy said:
I don't understand what the issue is here? Why do so many killers have an issue with survivors being able to continue to harvest flowers (without getting extra vials) after their initial 30? Can survivors participate in the event for its entire duration too? Killers can continue to get their 5.5k point hooks after they get their initial 30 vials, so why cant survivors? Is it just that they are the other side? We can't all have an enjoyable time?
Because then you're stealing nectar from survivors who still need it because you wanted a few bloodpoints, which is incredibly selfish and unnecessary for the event.
Then once Killer's reach their 30 vials they shouldn't get anymore bloodpoints from the event hooks then.
I take from your comment, that you haven't finished your killer vials.
Maybe not even attempted.What's so hard about it for Killers? You have nothing extra to do, just hooking people. That's it, no running around trying to find these stupid plants, no fighting with other Survivors for the plants. The event hooks cant be sabo'ed because Killers apparently threw a fit because we could sabo the previous ones. So tell me, what is so hard about this event for Killers? Hell you're even getting extra time to kill the Survivors because they are so busy fighting over the nectar that gens dont get done.
I'm going to preface my answer my stating that I'm a survivor main. I started this event playing as survivor, but then decided to switch to killer for reasons I will touch on below. I also started out thinking that killer was going to be easier, for the same reasons - guaranteed hooks, no nectar loss, and no competition for harvesting. But counterintuitively, that's not how it actually plays out.
In my experience, killer vials take 2-3 times longer to get, in terms of games, than survivor vials. As survivor, you need about 2 and a half plants to fill a vial. So if you're the only one that burns an offering, there are still 3 plants on the map, which means you have the opportunity to fill a whole vial in one match. If other people burn offerings, that makes it easier. Sure, sometimes you won't get your vial, especially if you're unlucky enough to get found and chased before you can harvest and others get to the plants first, but the point is you have the means to do it. Most of the time, I'm able to fill a whole vial in a survivor match. And once you fill the whole vial, it doesn't matter whether you live or die, you still get to keep it, so the losing nectar mechanic doesn't come into play very often either.
However, as killer, you alone are not responsible for your ability to fill a whole vial. When I play as killer I almost always get all the event hooks, but the problem is, there are typically only 1-3 offerings burned. That's fine for survivors, but for killer that means it's literally impossible to get a whole vial in one match, because you need at least 4 offerings burned for 6 hooks to spawn, which is the amount you need to fill one vial. Just your own offering plus the two defaults is not enough, unlike above when playing as survivor. So you're reliant on survivors to burn offerings so you can get nectar. I have yet to get a killer game where I filled an entire vial in one match, simply because there are never enough hooks.
On top of that, it's going to get easier for survivors as the event progresses and more people complete the objectives. If other people have finished their harvesting, that means you're going to have less competition for plants, which means filling a vial using only your own offering and the two default plants becomes increasingly viable. However, for killer, the more survivors complete their objectives, the less they're going to burn offerings, which means you're going to get less event hooks and it's going to take longer to get vials.
And that's not even mentioning the fact that more than 20% of people are playing killer right now, which means extra long queue times. I can't speak for everyone else, but because it takes so long to get vials I don't even care about killing survivors. So it's more a hindrance than anything that they're too busy geting nectar to do gens. I just want them to open the gates and get the hell out of there so I can get into a new match and harvest more nectar.
-
Lol it's too easy, but it's not so easy that literally everyone is rank 1. I'm not rank 1. I think what's actually happening is a) the only people who mention their rank are those who play at rank 1, because any rank lower is open to being ridiculed - there are lots of people who probably aren't top ranked that just don't talk about their rank. And b) there are probably people who lie and pretend they're rank 1, or imply it, because there are elitists on here that will discard your opinions and assume you have nothing worthwhile to say or haven't played the game very much if you're not at top rank.
-
A lot of people are making fun of you (with good reason, honestly) but for real - if you ban people who aren't good at the game, how do you expect anyone to get better? More importantly, how do you expect the game to sustain itself? Not everyone who is good at the game is going to keep playing it forever. If we banned every new player who isn't a video gaming prodigy, the player base would die a slow and painful (but skilled) death.
-
@friendlykillermain I know, right! One of the main reasons I don't like higher ranked play on survivor. It's just Billy or Nurse, all the time. Even if they were my favourites to play against, I think I'd still get bored after the 50th game against the same damn killer.
-
Freddy is strongest when people are in the dream world. That's where he can hurt them, not to mention he can see their auras if they're outside his radius. So I think giving people easy ways to wake up isn't worth having to find and put them to sleep again. Plus, the progress you lose with overcharge can be recovered in about 5 seconds.
On top of that, slowing the game down is only a means to an end. The reason killers want to slow generator progress is not because they want a long game, it's so that they have more opportunity to kill survivors. So as Freddy, you can have all the regressing generators in the world, but if survivors are never asleep long enough for you to kill them then it's going to be a stalemate at best.
-
I have no idea if she's fun to play as because I don't own her (I wish I did) but she's my favourite killer to play against. Not because she's easy - she's not, and besides easy wins aren't that fun - but because she's really good at upping the tension and also the time-based puzzle mechanic (which box has the key? Will I find the right one in time? Which ones can I search safely?). The fact that she makes doing generators dangerous is IMO a really interesting mechanic, although the amount of teammates I get who either don't know how the Pig works or don't care and just pop gens like no man's business is astounding.
I can see why the devs say her base kit is the strongest - she has a built-in mechanic for slowing down gen progress (so she doesn't need ruin or something similar) and if she still has traps left she's probably the strongest in the endgame. If you have a trap on your head when the gates are powered, the idea that you have to either get it off or find the hatch adds an extra layer to the usual open-the-doors-and-get-out-quick routine and makes it infinitely more interesting and dangerous.
I wish more people played Pig. Even when I lose to her I feel like I won.
-
@Kilmeran @Jed I'm going to be totally honest - everything I said about F13 was unresearched, and I haven't actually played the game. I assumed if it was licenced, it would have had financial backing from the licence owners. And it's a fairly new game, so I also made an assumption that if it had dedicated servers they would have been there from the beginning. I stand corrected
So ignore everything I said about F13.My points about money and resources in terms of dedicated servers for DbD still stand though.
-
F13 had dedicated servers when it came out, and I'm guessing a larger budget since it was a licenced game. Now that DbD has been out for 2+ years, it's going to be more difficult and resource-consuming to switch to dedicated servers than it would have been to start out with them. Also ddosing isn't that huge a problem - the evidence for that being the very fact that they're not making dedicated servers a higher priority. It sucks that it happens at all, but the truth is it's not a common enough occurence for it to actually affect the reputation of the game and the company.
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 Even if that's the case, the others have been around much longer. Also, they're not free on PC (except for David), and the game is PC-native so that's where the biggest player base is. But even if that weren't the case, the devs have said that the older survivors like claudette and meg are the most played, which is why they release more cosmetics for them. People tend to buy cosmetics for their favourites or the ones they play most, so more players = more people willing to buy cosmetics for that character. If there's more demand for that character, meeting that demand with more cosmetics is going to result in bigger profits for the developers.
So, in short, they're always going to make more cosmetics for the most popular survivors because that's how they'll get the most money. If say, Feng Min and David were actually the most popular survivors, they would be making the most cosmetics for them because it's in their best financial interests to do so. So, we know that they aren't lying about the statistics because their financial decisions make sense in the context of what they've told us.
-
Short answer: it costs time and money they don't have, because they're prioritising other things. At the end of the day, it's your choice to play the game and put yourself at risk. Legally, the devs aren't responsible for anything that happens to you because of a P2P connection while playing their game. Whether they're ethically responsible, however, is a whole other argument, but people who run businesses tend to give ethics a backseat if there aren't legal ramifications.
To be fair, I don't think the devs are heartless monsters. I imagine from their perspective it goes something like "this is a risk to our players, but fixing it requires a lot of time and resources. We need to prioritise making money, because a) if the company goes bankrupt then there's no game at all anymore, and b) we need lots of money to fix this issue".
-
@Orion No, I don't think the killer should DC. I'm sorry you thought that was a serious suggestion, it was actually a sarcastic means of pointing out how ridiculous complaining about having to wait a whole entire minute is. I already told you what I think - I think that they should either suck it up and be patient, or patrol the map and see if they can find something to destroy for last-minute BPs. I only said that the killer should DC if they're like you and can't possibly wait 60 seconds for the game to end. Yes, there are toxic survivors who try to troll and bully killers. I'm not one of them, by the way. But as I said, if the survivor wants to troll the killer by making them wait 60 seconds, the joke's on them because the killer can just make use of that time to get more points for themself.
I'm trying to approach this by looking at both angles, taking into account my experience playing as both killer and survivor. You were arguing that OP's idea is a bad one because killers would have to wait extra. I'm suggesting that the wait time isn't that big a deal, and on top of that it's not likely to even be a factor, because the majority of survivors care more about escaping than they do about punishing the killer, assuming the killer hasn't provoked them by being a dick all game or something.
-
@Orion True, but what survivor wouldn't try to escape? The only reason people don't do it every time they're hooked is that they have a better chance of living if they wait for a teammate. I suppose they could just not try to escape to spite the killer, but in that case as I said, the killer doesn't have to stay and watch, they can patrol the map and try to get last-minute bloodpoints. Besides, 60 seconds isn't the end of the world. I think the survivor having the chance to escape (because why shouldn't they get the same opportunity to get that 4% that their teammates had, if they were good enough to not get hooked the entire game) is more important than the possibility of the killer being "bored". And if 60 seconds is that important to you, you can always save time by dc'ing.
Also, to address your other point - I already said that I don't think they should be able to struggle. Just have the chance to attempt an escape.
-
I totally agree with you @scumrrado . I was going to propose a compromise in which you die instantly once you get to phase 2 but still get to attempt escape, but I see you addressed that in your follow-up post. For all those saying that it would be boring for the killer to have to wait, the killer would only wait like 5-10 seconds longer in this scenario. Besides, when I play killer, I don't just stand there waiting for the last survivor to die. That's a waste of time. I walk off, and see if there are any generators or pallets that need breaking nearby while I wait for the animations to play out. That way, I entertain myself, plus I potentially get a few hundred extra BPs. So a) It's not true that the killer has to just stand there waiting while they die, and b) It's also not true that the person will just get instantly downed again.
However, I don't think that the last survivor should be able to struggle. It's 800 bloodpoints, which isn't that much, and certainly is not enough to make up for the killer having to wait 60 seconds while you farm points. And I don't think they should get struggle points automatically, either. It doesn't make sense to get points for something you didn't do, for starters, and making it into some kind of "last survivor" bonus doesn't make sense either - it's not like you just fly onto the hook as soon as your last teammate dies, you're hooked because you got outplayed in the endgame.
