FireHazard
FireHazard
About
- Username
- FireHazard
- Joined
- Visits
- 962
- Last Active
Comments
-
@twistedmonkey said:
FireHazard said:@douggie123 said:
The killer should be able to shut hatch if they find it first before the survivor. It's also annoying because I can always find hatch easy as anything when playing killer but as survivor it takes an age to find it if at all.
They did have that mechanic when the PTB for the clown was around I believe (When he was the newest killer.) But the idea got tossed around and eventually closed for obvious reasons...Cough The community outrage Cough
Please dont spread false information with conspiracy theorys.
The reason the closing of the hatch mechanic was scrapped was due to it not solving the problem of the hatch standoff, survivors having no hope could stealth around maybe touching a gen now and again but in the end the game went on for a stupid length.
It didn't fix the standoff problem where two stubborn people would rather stand there staring at eaxh other, it simply moved it to long hide and seek scenario prolonging the game in a different way.
This went against the hatch by design as it is to help end the game quicker so both sides can move on to another one.
Sorry? You have to admit though, if it wasn't THAT...then it'd be community outrage.
-
@ShyN3ko said:
If anyone wonders why he gets hit, even though he vaulted completely through the window.
Killers dont have a T-Rex arm.
Every person could do it, if you stand to near at the window.
So its not the killer fault, if they hit you over a fence or through a window.
You was just to near.PS:
Yes i made this dicussion, because survivors said:
"******* hitbox, noob lagswitch killer.
Deinstall the game."They tea - bagging me behind a window.
Guess what happened.Fun tip, you can hit survivors if they're close enough behind windows, fences, and even those bared fences in one of the coldwind maps (The Slaughterhouse one.)
-
@douggie123 said:
The killer should be able to shut hatch if they find it first before the survivor. It's also annoying because I can always find hatch easy as anything when playing killer but as survivor it takes an age to find it if at all.They did have that mechanic when the PTB for the clown was around I believe (When he was the newest killer.) But the idea got tossed around and eventually closed for obvious reasons...Cough The community outrage Cough
-
@Paddy4583 said:
pemberley said:Okay I know Jack the Ripper is like the boogeyman of horror and crime genres, but I’m sorry, I don’t think it would be appropriate to play Jack in a video game. Real women were butchered, Jack was a real life predator. It would be like if dbd decided to put Ted Bundy in the game - inappropriate, highly disrespectful to actual victims, and playing into our society’s creepy fixation on the scum of the earth who thrive on the notoriety instead of the lives they stole.
It’s okay to want a Victorian killer, it’s okay to be interested in how MESSED UP Victorian society was, but there is literally a whole library of fiction to work from that doesn’t dehumanize victims as little more than gore fodder.
There’s already a killer in game that is based on real life killers under a pseudonym who had real victims.
If Ted bundy was a killer wouldn't David King just kick his ass for example?
-
Freddys/Myers map is worse.
-
@fcc2014 said:
@FireHazard said:
@fcc2014 said:
Disappointed that when i opened the thread it didn't say "it blew"
It spits.
Swallows?
Something like that.
-
Don't talk bad about my boy Myers...
-
Yes and No. It wouldn't kill DBD but it would make a lot of people leave because they can't play with their friends.
-
@fcc2014 said:
AntiJelly said:But it wasn't good either.
In my opinion, this event might've been more balanced, but it wasn't nearly as fun as the Hallowed Blight.
This event was just boring, and that's worse than being the chaos that was Hallowed Blight.
I think for the next event, the devs shouldn't go for some boring safe option. Even if it means something crazy.
Disappointed that when i opened the thread it didn't say "it blew"
It spits.
-
People seek someone to blame for the issues. Are you really surprised that the Devs have become the outlet of this hate/blame?
You see this in any game, company, or anything really these days.
-
He must dislike corn, and all corn based products.
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@The_Crusader said:
Orion said:@XavierBoah17 said:
If they removed the speed buff and instead added a penalty to using the perk. Like increased terror radius.
Like the survivors being able to disable it before it even activates?
...Wait.
Which saddens me to say but that's actually completely unfair. It's so easy to disable it in swf too.
How is it fair that the killers crutch perk can be stopped from happening but the survivors can't? Dribbling is situational so it doesn't count.
true mat least instant flashlights dont exist anymore but unfortunatly you cant drop them anymore before the blind
I'd take that over the instant blind from behind you my dude.
-
@Beverly said:
The fact you have a Michael profile pic makes it 10x better.Moon Walks off stage
-
@Mc_Harty said:
@FireHazard said:
Deep Wound literally exists cause of The Legion, I don't see a reason to remove it from him.Because it's a badly design mechanic? In a game full of badly design mechanics?
Yes...I'm not denying its a ######### mechanic, i'm saying that removing it from it removes what makes Legion...Legion. They'd have to actually rework his entire power MAYBE even change it...
-
@Mc_Harty said:
@FireHazard said:
How? Give an example.- A full on rework where Deep Wound isn't part of his power.
- Having Deep Wound no longer countdown in his terror radius
There, I gave you 2.
Deep Wound literally exists cause of The Legion, I don't see a reason to remove it from him.
- might work though
-
@Mc_Harty said:
@FireHazard said:
Its kind of common sense, if you're able to walk backwards physically...Then its not really an exploit, and if it WAS one for whatever reason they can't stop/fix it.They can fix Legions ######### mechanics that reward him for doing this.
How? Give an example.
-
@Freudentrauma said:
@FireHazard said:
Anythings an exploit these days. Breathing...Is an exploit.Well to be fair. Moonwalking or looking down as Legion is kinda a way were you avoid the game to register a chase, even though you are chasing at the moment. It's up to the devs to decide or define it. But it can be considered as an exploit.
I mean if I look into a another game recently (Sea of Thieves), a technique called double gunning (pistol sniper) was considered an exploit. Even though it wasn't any bug people exploited. Just the fact that you can hipshoot immediatly switching between weapons. They didn't ban anyone for doing it. They just took it out of the game. But I wanted to say is that certain techniques can be considered unwanted design or actually exploits. It's the devs to decide.
Currently it isn't. Just something they are concerned.Its kind of common sense, if you're able to walk backwards physically...Then its not really an exploit, and if it WAS one for whatever reason they can't stop/fix it.
-
Anythings an exploit these days. Breathing...Is an exploit.
-
@Furby said:
Then your weird urge of getting my entry down will become true. Just be patient and brush away your foam from your mouth.
If i still won't get disqualified, maybe you'll try to see from my perspective. Good luck!You oddly don't seem to understand the concept of fair play either. You must be great at poker night...
-
@starkiller1286 said:
Furby said:Then your weird urge of getting my entry down will become true. Just be patient and brush away your foam from your mouth.
If i still won't get disqualified, maybe you'll try to see from my perspective. Good luck!
Your logic is literally "I'm going to cheat and if caught I'll admit it. If I win I'll set a precedent that cheating is OK and that you might do it too."
The logic in that hurts my brain like seriously...
-
@Furby said:
Admitting is always a good thing "buddy". In my perspective it shows that i dont have anything to hide about the contest. And as i said regarding the 5 votes ive made, they went down little after that. I didnt create any more of these. Call me out as much as you want. Im at peace knowing i havent been spamming accounts now.It's funny how others only mention me but doesn't check the other posts.
There are quite enough sheeps. As i said above, im sorry you feel this wayLets compile this for a second.
So you admitted to cheating beforehand, which is unknown why you're still not disqualified... You try to justify this by saying other people also did this (Which they were disqualified for) and i'm pretty sure most your views are also from you or your friends/Spoof accounts which ALSO can get you disqualified.
You're not sorry for this... You're sorry you got caught.
-
Like for real, how am I suppose to not be mad if he wins by literally pulling this crap.
-
@Furby said:
I dont understand why you are so upset about my entry. You kept writing bad stuff on the post and now even on my wall lol. At first, i'll admit i made like 5 acc to increase the votes up (when i had aprox 15-20 votes), but after you cried about it, the mods took a look and they removed all the upvotes that ive created,regressing my post with 7-8 votes. Right now, it just got upvoted by other people. It's true i've asked some close friends to get a look on it, and those who did, also commented ( as you probably figured that out already )I don't have the time or the tools to create 50 "spoof accounts" to win. I'd rather play the game and grind the event or else
I ignored all the upvotes you we're getting. Yesterday you had 27 or so and now almost 50 lol. I think i smell arrogance trashtalking about me.The contest was fun for me and it should also be for you. I'm sorry you feel that way.
@not_Queen and the ohters will check before announcing. Good luck to all
Buddy, you and I both know other people have been disqualified for that. And you literally admitting right now doesn't help your case...
I somehow got ahead of you yesterday, and magically i'm expecting that wasn't you making more accounts to get back ahead of me? Please brother... I can smell cheating from a mile away the moment I saw your Vote ups and Awesomes roll back when you got called out.
-
Existing.
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
@XavierBoah17 said:
If they removed the speed buff and instead added a penalty to using the perk. Like increased terror radius.Like the survivors being able to disable it before it even activates?
...Wait.or what if, what if survivors just wait for it take their lumps and deal with it like everyone else
That takes too much forward thinking to do apparently...
-
@EntityDispleased said:
Make another rant about the problems with you and why you can't counter noed, even though you're given a very clear and free counter to it.I can counter it actually, and have in the past. The issue itself is my teammates (Specifically in Solo survival) that don't think ahead of this.
Did you even read the post?
-
@Paddy4583 said:
FireHazard said:@Paddy4583 said:
I’m sorry but I just don’t get the whole premise of the argument, they use it but don’t need it.
How is it possible, wouldn’t you have killed everyone by the time NOED would even be if any use if you didn’t need it?
Its not an argument at all is flawed logic
Are you talking about the edited version that's currently up, or the older versions?
Oh I see it’s been edited again lol.
I tell all new players always expect NOED and always assume NC.
Cleanse before gens
Never heal in heartbeat
It was edited again with a uh... Less salty attitude. The perk itself is manageable it just depends who really uses it, and for what reason. But also it can be an issue especially on solo survival since nobody bothers to expect it anymore.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
I’m sorry but I just don’t get the whole premise of the argument, they use it but don’t need it.
How is it possible, wouldn’t you have killed everyone by the time NOED would even be if any use if you didn’t need it?
Its not an argument at all is flawed logicAre you talking about the edited version that's currently up, or the older versions?
-
@Nikkiwhat said:
FireHazard said:@Nikkiwhat said:
Ah, the old zombie of complaining about NOED has risen again. The perk is fine, the game has other issues and topics that need to be looked at.
True, but those issues usually won't be fixed also till maybe like 2020 lmao. Jokes aside yes, there are bigger issues than NOED at the moment. But those issues won't really be addressed like most things until awhile later.
Can't argue about the timeframe for things getting fixed...took forever for Survellaince to be made even viable to pick....not to mention other well known issues slowly shrugs
in-general whatever breaks takes 2 patches later to fix. Than that patch breaks something else, which takes another 2 patches to fix. Than the cycle continues.
-
@Peanits said:
I remember long killer queues, people farming and intentionally dying to grind out the event as fast as possible, other people just trying to play the game normally while the teammates spent the first few minutes of the match not doing the objective and instead just farming the event objective, incredibly easy 4ks, and even just trying to play killer to have people juicin' plants right in my face, expecting me to let them when I just wanted to play the game.That's compared to: The scoring is a little off.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder, I guess. I definitely don't remember it being universally loved, and in comparison I think the problems with this event are much smaller than the ones with the old event.
As some people have put it, it was basically Farming Simulator 2018 (Dead by Daylight Edition.) Since that's all I saw happen also.
-
@Nikkiwhat said:
Ah, the old zombie of complaining about NOED has risen again. The perk is fine, the game has other issues and topics that need to be looked at.True, but those issues usually won't be fixed also till maybe like 2020 lmao. Jokes aside yes, there are bigger issues than NOED at the moment. But those issues won't really be addressed like most things until awhile later.
-
Hallowed Blight in every sense of the word was a mistake. The Event was clearly Killer sided while also boasting 20minute+ long ques for games as killer (Since most people were trying to play killer at the time.)
Survivors would literally suicide for vials because nothing else would matter in the grand scheme of things, so they would just get their vials than kill themselves on the hook to move on. Nothing about that event was better than this one except for the points distributed among everyone.
This event plays off of those mistakes by giving the survivors a 2nd opinion while also primarily focusing on the main objectives and rewarding the survivor/killer for keeping that in mind.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?
Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.
Can I REEEEEEE you?
You've been doing that this whole thread bro.
I wasn't thinking clearly, please re-read the post and tell me what you think.
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.
How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?
Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...
This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.
Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?
Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.
The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?
They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.
Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?
So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?
No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?
I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. What you do with them is up to you. You can either cling to your accusations of toxicity based on people not having the power to see the future, or you can try to see things from a different perspective.
I re-edited the post. I hope its more level headed. Rather than a rant being hypocritical its more of a warning now.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?
Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.
Can I REEEEEEE you?
-
@mcNuggets said:
Even if it's for noobs, still not overpoweredI never said it was.
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.
How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?
Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...
This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.
Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?
Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.
The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?
They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.
Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?
So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?
No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.
How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?
Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...
This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.
Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?
Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.
The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?
They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.
Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?
So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?
-
@FireHazard said:
But still use it despite that fact. You're of course entitled to whatever perk set up you use of course, but if you don't need the perk for killers that never will need it... then you're just being unfair and in-general playing like a noob.
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?
So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.
You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.
I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.
Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.
And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?
Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.
I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?
Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...
You keep saying that, but I'm starting to think YOU aren't reading what you're typing.
Clearly I do if I keep pointing it out to you several times, do I need to continue this till you understand what i'm saying?
How about you go back and read your initial post (Which is still quoted in my first comment on page 1) AND the edited version and show me where you say anything about killers actually behaving in a toxic way. Also worth a note because it's bugging me now, "Noob" does not mean "Intentionally toxic player". It means new or inexperienced player. Words, even slang, have meanings. If you want to call someone something at least don't make up your own definitions, it just makes things way less clear for no reason.
I can't rewrite the title to say "If you use NOED and are toxic than you're an [BAD WORD]" since BHVR likes to censor bad words. So that's the best thing I could come up with. I can say you're a jerk if you want it to sound more PG-13 for the kiddies.
Does douche get censored? How about jerk? Fool, idiot, halfwit, simpleton, blockhead, buffoon, dolt, dunce ignoramus, moron, [BAD WORD], dullard, cretin, simpleton, clod?
I didn't know douche isn't censored until this comment chain came back up on this post, how would I know this?
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.
How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?
Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...
This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.
Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?
Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.
The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?
They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.
-
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?
So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.
You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.
I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.
Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.
And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?
Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.
I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?
Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...
You keep saying that, but I'm starting to think YOU aren't reading what you're typing.
Clearly I do if I keep pointing it out to you several times, do I need to continue this till you understand what i'm saying?
How about you go back and read your initial post (Which is still quoted in my first comment on page 1) AND the edited version and show me where you say anything about killers actually behaving in a toxic way. Also worth a note because it's bugging me now, "Noob" does not mean "Intentionally toxic player". It means new or inexperienced player. Words, even slang, have meanings. If you want to call someone something at least don't make up your own definitions, it just makes things way less clear for no reason.
I can't rewrite the title to say "If you use NOED and are toxic than you're an #########" since BHVR likes to censor bad words. So that's the best thing I could come up with. I can say you're a jerk if you want it to sound more PG-13 for the kiddies.
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.
How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?
Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...
This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.
Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?
Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.
-
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?
So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.
You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.
I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.
Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.
And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?
Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.
I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?
Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...
You keep saying that, but I'm starting to think YOU aren't reading what you're typing.
Clearly I do if I keep pointing it out to you several times, do I need to continue this till you understand what i'm saying?
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Some games you don't need it, but some game you do need it. You have no way to know before the game starts. If they rush gens or just split the map then you are screwed as killer. You can't pressure in those situations.
There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.
How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?
Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...
This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.
-
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?
So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.
You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.
I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.
Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.
And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?
Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.
I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?
Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...
-
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.
You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.
You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?
-
@CyanideCandy said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?
So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.
You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.
I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.
Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.
And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.
If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.
There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.
-
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?
So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.
You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.
I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.
That's not what I said, so no, you either didn't read it or just didn't understand it. I don't know why you're pretending you did both.
Clearly I did since its calling out your point. "Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought?" I don't I guess, I can't call out people who are being clearly toxic. I have no right to say that, I should just be a good boy and get demolished by a clearly broken build.