Huff
Huff
About
- Username
- Huff
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,181
- Last Active
Comments
-
@KingFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1393361#Comment_1393361
Topic creator literally complained about equal representation. Don't think anyone's strawmanning anything here.
Mmmm, no, he's complaining about the media being lackluster as a result of inclusion being the first thing considered rather than story. He literally said that equal representation can be done well, but that he's worried because it's been done wrong many many times before. Seriously just read the post before you start making up stories lmfao
I'd love for anybody to show me a quote where the OP is saying "I don't like TLOU2 because it's diverse and I don't like equal representation."
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1393346#Comment_1393346
Indeed. One side wants to be afforded the same representation that the other already gets, whereas the other doesn't want that and thinks representation of groups other than their own is "political" or "agenda-pushing" and shouldn't be done.
Two sides of the same coin, definitely.
And there you are again proving you're incapable of taking criticism of something you like, and would instead assume the feelings of your enemy.
Indeed two sides of the same coin.
-
@Talmeer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1393361#Comment_1393361
What do you mean with this?
I have take a clear position against tlou2 and also against another developer. Both with a reason. Was tlou2 not explained enough? Or whas it because I have nothing write to the original subject of the thread, aka. the sexual orientation by bhvr dbd characters?
I think most of the people will not care about the sexual relationships and orientations of their dbd characters, if bhvr shows that not via ingame scenes, or ingame videos.
If the majority of the playerbase ever think about it, they will imo assume that they have the same orientation as the player itself. No matter what they write about it in some text.
I have bhvr criticized very often in the past and I bet I will do it also in the future, because well... It's behavior we talk about here and they are seem not to be happy, if someone gots not mad at the end of day, I guess after all the things the have change and nerf in the past.
But at the moment I think, there are more important problems in dbd, as the sexual orientation of a ingame character.
What tlou matters, so I think it has a bad story because you damn humanity at the end of part 1 to another infinite cycle of living with the illness that takes place there.
Imo, the only thing that has naughty dog made right with Joel's story is the thing they show then in part 2 of tlou (to avoid to name spoilers I talk about it on this way).
I haven't seen yet everything of tlou2, since the YouTuber I follow for this has not finished the game, but this part on the story has always suck for me and also that the tlou2 maincharacter goes now on rampage because the thing that had happened to Joel.
I would have preferred if they write a story where the characters work on saving the world and not on letting the earth suffer even more.
Yeah. That's my point. You're against it and you don't care about the "sexual relationships" as you put it. That's simply what I mean with this.
-
Exactly. I don't know if this is a bug or a new "feature" (or lack of, rather) but even beyond that friend thing, what if you want to get somebody's steam ID for a report? I don't know, I just don't understand how something like this exists in the game since the new patch and still hasn't gotten taken care of. Seems like quite the oversight if this is an intended thing.
-
I think they'd have to be reeeeally careful with how they did it, because I could imagine it either falling to the "really busted" side or the "really weak" side.
I like the idea and think it'd be interesting though. Especially if they let the player control the hound to a certain degree. I've seen other characters designed like that, usually in fighting game like Rosalina and Luma in Smash Bros, or this one guy with a puppet in a Naruto fighting game I've played before. Those are both characters where they have a "main" part of their body, and then an "extension" that will mimic their moves in a way and be like a 2nd fighting person, or like a clone. I think an idea like that is really cool but you'd have to be very cautious with it because it could easily turn busted.
-
@gatsby said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1393367#Comment_1393367
Main Weapon in Right Hand. Secondary Power in Left Hand. Nearly every Killer follows that pattern it's not intentional to show left handedness it's just the way the Devs design Killers. Freddy has his claw on his right hand and his left hand uses his snares (power). Doctor has is bat in his right hand and his shock (power) in his left. Huntress has her main ax in her right hand and her hatchets (power) in her left etc.
It's kind of like the Developers philosophy until recently with sexuality. They just default everyone to the same thing until people call them out on actually representing diversity. They could easily make a Killer with a left handed main weapon and right handed power, but no one has ever called them out for not doing it
The way I think of it, I can swing something with either side, but if I try to throw something with only my non dominant hand I'm a lot worse at it. Baseball is an example I'm thinking of where I've found it easier to swing a bat standing in either stance, but trying to throw with my dominant vs. non-dominant hand isn't even a competition. Have you ever tried throwing something accurately with your non-dominant hand? That's all I'm gonna say.
Also, I don't even want to touch that sexuality topic. That has nothing to do with this thread and I'd kind of like if it stayed that way.
-
He's not one of my main DbD content creators that I watch, but I've still watched his stuff here and there when I see it pop up and it looks interesting, and I've heard a couple complaints about him. The two biggest ones I've heard is that he bases a lot of what he calls "good" around being able to pip, and will blame his mistakes on things during the game, like accusing a survivor of using stretched res or claiming he could have done something with stretched res when he could have just played better, or even blaming something on SWF.
I don't think they're entirely wrong, but I don't exactly think it's something that infects every little bit of his content. I usually don't even notice stuff like that but I've seen some examples where he's doing those sorts of things. I would think it's hard to never blame something though, I feel like it's one of those things that a lot of people do without even realizing it.
-
Until they remove that one (what I'm assuming at least is a) bug where he slows down after reloading, I'll still think he feels about the same.
Although it might just be me reloading more than I should, because I don't like being caught with only 1 bottle to throw. I just personally don't notice a difference between now and before, because it feels like either way I'm being slowed down after using my bottles, just at a different time.
-
It's bad on both sides. I can be peeking out from behind a box or something, barely look at the survivor for any time, and then quickly go back behind the box only for them to still reveal me from completely behind cover.
It's kind of like what Purgatorian said.
-
@Lx_malice said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1393434#Comment_1393434
It's too bad not very many people play her. I guess people would just rather avoid the long process of learning her when they can just get quicker, better results playing spirit or Freddy instead. One day they'll fix her bugs and it'll be very worth it to learn how to play her.
Yep that's exactly what I imagine is the cause. I mean people say she's buggy and since I don't play her often (not that I don't enjoy her, it's just that there's so many killers I like) I just have to trust them when they say that. But yeah, often times people aren't going to want to put in practice to unlock top tier potential in a killer when they could just pick up, Freddy for example as you said, and get similar results with braindead amounts of effort.
I'm with you on that one though. If there were a lot more time in my day for me to play as more killers I'd probably be picking her up too, but I still aspire to. I personally have found it fun as well when I have played as her, and still find some success, and that's even with only BBQ as my perk (might as well get BP for practicing) and no addons except maybe the range indicator one (plaid flannel?) as sort of "training armor" so I can be a god when I finally start putting on actually good stuff like her recharge addons.
-
I was discussing with another person in a different thread some things about FNaF (he was an advocate) and (paraphrasing here) he essentially said that eventually there's going to be a time when they're running out of franchises to choose from and it's going to be a possibility. Like he was asking how long it would be until it would actually be considered since there's only so many franchises out there? This sort of helped me understand how I felt better about the franchise because I couldn't put it into words as well as I can after hearing that.
Pretty much my point of view on it is sure, you can throw Springtrap in eventually, but the question is when? I don't think it's going to be for a long time because there's plenty of other things that I'm sure many people would rather see before Springtrap, even if Springtrap is a completely viable option.
For me personally, just the fact that it's connected to a kiddie franchise is enough to somewhat taint the idea for me. In that other thread, I used the examples of Slenderman and Jeff the Killer to compare it to. This is because like FNaF, those two characters have just been connected to kiddie culture (in this case, childrens' internet campfire stories: creepypasta) and I just can't really take it seriously when it's directly connected to that. It's not even a conscious thought where I have it out against fans of those things. It's just like, if they added in Spongebob but made him the most genuinely horrifying fear-striking killer imaginable, it would still be in the back of my head "Jesus why am I being chased by Spongebob?" So yeah, while it's a plausible idea, I wouldn't exactly be a fan of the idea.
If we're discussing a character being implemented and not thinking about the fact that it's FNaF-related, what's to stop BHVR from just doing their own personal (and probably better) version of a robotic killer? That's always been my take on the FNaF issue. I'm just simply not a fan of the franchise and personally don't want it touching DbD (unless it were to be done in like the most perfect way) and I don't just see why we couldn't just have BHVR make a similarly-themed robotic spooky killer. I personally think if BHVR had the artistic freedom to try to create something based around that concept they could make it way better than anything FNaF has. I can look at The Spirit for example. If I heard that name and it was still before Spirit came out, I wouldn't have imagined them making her look as cool as they did. If you ask me they did an excellent job with her design, and I bet they could do the same in this case too.
To each their own though. I won't attack you for being an advocate for FNaF being in DbD, as I'd hope anybody would do for me any my opinions. Heck, for all I know, I could just not have heard the argument I've needed to hear to convert me into a FNaF advocate too and it's just waiting for me somewhere out there. Hasn't happened yet though.
-
It's surprising to see somebody enjoying Nurse around here. I don't personally hate playing her, but a lot of people here complain about even the thought of playing her, and they think she's just way too unfun.
It'll be interesting seeing the responses of people to that line about trying the meme addons. There'll certainly be at least one person that has some strong feelings about how fun it is to play as Nurse with those.
-
I'm not sure how "horror" Bioshock is but I have to admit that it would have a lot of potential. A lot of different powers (forgot what they call em in the game, those little Syringe things) for you to use, like Lightning or Fire or mind control or whatever, and that would make for interesting potential.
-
I mean, some people have already pointed out: Huntress, Clown. This is just off memory so might be wrong, but I believe Trapper even sets his traps with his left hand.
Statistically only about 10% of people are left-handed, so if we're going based off that (and assuming that these certain characters are left-dominant) then I'd say statistically we're already about on point.
-
@Bravo0413 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1391569#Comment_1391569
Exactly and the worse part is that the small percentage that the companies are attempting to attract dont even support the product... there's few "woke" products that have done well but they needed a big name like "marvel" and "TLOU" to do well.
I know I just posted, so this might be a little redundant, but don't let the reductionist commenters get to you. I know what you're saying isn't just "don't add the LBGTs into my games!" You don't like the agenda-pushing and I can respect it.
There's plenty of people like this that just don't like the game:
@Siberia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1389675#Comment_1389675
Lmao I’m sorry but I played it and thought it was garbage. Beautiful graphics and gameplay. But they could’ve done something way better with the story 🤷
@Talmeer said:
I also dislike tlou2 (what I have seen from it in let's plays), but I have already dislike tlou. In my eyes, they try always weird storyways that are not appealing to me.
But one thing I need to say: Why need people that dislike a game, to buy the game in the first place?
Where is the sense in buying something that you dislike for whatever reason?
Every game can today be watched via streams, or let's plays. There is no need to buy something to make yourself a opinion of it.
I have also not buy rockstar games for a long time, because I do not like to have another launcher on my system and I really dislike how they behave towards modders and YouTubers. Somebody really need to teach them the "powers of writing letters and using phones", instead of people that harass those guys at home, far as I have heard.
And yes, I know "if you buy or not buy their games, it doesn't matter at the end of the day" and this is right, but you know... If there would not be so much housemade to criticize, they could have made a little bit more money and that should always be the target of a company.
Edit: With my critic about their story I have not aim at the lesbian relationship of the maincharacter. My critic goes there a bit deeper as this one.
I think it's just utterly sad when people try to water something down just to try to attack a strawman instead of actually make a real argument, like this:
@KingFrost said:
"How dare they have equal representation in a video game! If I can't personally identify as a character, how am I supposed to play as them!? I mean I expect LGBT people to play as characters they can't identify with. BUT THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT!"
@F60_31 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1389662#Comment_1389662
I do not care what pewdiepie or any youtuber thinks. TLOU2 is a massive success and most people who played it love it. It just got review bombed like many other games before by people who did not play it at all.
Not everybody who dislikes something is just a "hater."
-
Two sides of the same coin, these people. You're either an "SJW trying to force an agenda" or you're just a "phobic hater."
I wish people could just like or dislike something and not be accused of it having anything to do with politics. I haven't personally played the game myself, but I've heard how the story kind of goes and can understand why people would find it underwhelming. Can I personally say that I hate it? No, I haven't played it, but it's pretty pathetic to just disregard anybody who dislikes something as a "hater."
Eh, these people will always be, like I said, "two sides of the same coin." It isn't beneath some people unfortunately to be hypocritically closed-minded. :|
-
I'm going to be honest and say I didn't read every single detail, I mostly just skimmed it, but I do generally understand what you're saying (change Legion's power to be more based around hiding in the lockers and tricking survivors.)
I actually really like the idea of the different power. I want to preface by saying that I don't know if it would be better exactly, or even balanced, but I think it's an awesome idea taking control of multiple characters to attack from different angles. It reminds me of "The Lost Vikings" from Blizzard's games (Heroes of the Storm is one if you're interested in checking what I mean.) I have just a few notes though.
I usually hate drawing comparisons between killers, but the teleportation ability reminds me a lot of Freddy, but when you think of Freddy's vs. your proposed Legion teleport, you'll notice that Legion has to find an object, channel a long time, have a notification go off for the survivors and all that. With Freddy however, he can do it from anywhere to any uncompleted gen as long as his power meter is filled. Not only that, but he charges it up in just a couple seconds. It's hard to come up with unique ideas, but I feel like things that are going to be similar to other killers (like this Freddy vs. Legion thing) have to be competitive with each other. The teleport feels like it's a really long drawn out version of Fred's teleport and Freddy can be much more deadly than Legion as it stands, without any changes. Also, I know you mentioned "basement locker" in your teleportation thing, but I also feel like even the lockers upstairs shouldn't be able to be used. It's still too close to the basement -- but maybe you already thought about that.
Anyway, I like the idea. It would make Legion feel crazy to play being able to be at multiple places at once (essentially) and keep people on their toes like any of the other high-mobility killers.
-
Cake being fixed and event being extended. Go home everybody, it's done :)
-
For gameplay, is it smart? Usually not, unless you practically know a survivor has DS and just want to eat it early.
Is it more "fair" though? I'd say almost definitely. I can't tell you how many times I've been playing survivor and had a killer legit just tunnel the ######### out of me even though I didn't do anything to them that would've pissed them off. I'm talking like, only get to earn like 2k bloodpoints, being tunneled that hard. I don't like running DS so in a situation like that I really don't have a choice but to just eat it.
If all you care about is winning then sure tunnel all you want. If you care in the slightest about having fun though, and wouldn't mind letting some other people play the game (usually how I try to handle it,) then there's no problem with just letting people go. I'll personally "tunnel" but just knock somebody down after being unhooked but leave and slug them, so I don't have to deal either with a DS, or another survivor running around.
-
When somebody accidentally outs themselves as being survivor-biased by claiming the forums are filled with "killer mains" LOL that's rich
-
You could probably think of a million slightly nuanced situations, but most will boil down to one thing: it's advantageous for you in that situation, and letting them go would be shooting yourself in the foot.
Now, it's up to each individual to decide if they really need to try that hard. It's not a sleight against people who want to win, just not everybody is interested in sitting there the whole time. For me personally, if they survivors aren't trying to be jerks, I'll happily walk away just so I can start looking for other things to do more quickly and not be bored.
-
@DSN512 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1392326#Comment_1392326
Maybe it was made 2 years ago but it's still relevant. Beats making a new thread.
If it was still relevant then people wouldn't have stopped posting here in May 2018
-
This is just a completely blind guess, but I'm guessing that the OP saw a survivor's crown that had some lighting shining off of it (like when they're all around the campfire before the game.) I wouldn't say it's blue but they look a little more silvery than gold. Other than that, I have no clue about any "blue" crown. :/
-
*makes survivor-sided demand and complains against killers*
"Anybody who disagrees with me is a killer main and automatically will be ignored!"
A titan of intellect here, surely... lol
Either that, or bait.
-
You're completely spot on with your post. I agree with you Nurse is probably still the best and probably will remain the best until her power gets completely reworked. I think there simply just isn't going to be something stronger than teleporting through walls unless they make just an utterly ridiculous and overloaded killer.
Most people don't think she's good either because of the bugs, or because they think she's too hard. The bugs I can understand, but still, she's deadly.
-
When people necro a thread from 2 years ago...
These threads seriously need to auto lock after a certain amount of time.
-
@Mytch said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1391229#Comment_1391229
LMAO, I thought my game is just bugging out since I can't check
Not sure if it's a "bug," since those seem to crop up everywhere. What I will say though is, this is a perfect opportunity for hackers to come out, now that profiles can't be checked afterwards.
-
I've had it happen to me for quite a while now and I don't even know when it started. Hope I get to stop seeing it one day though.
-
Don't focus on the number next to your name. It doesn't mean anything as of now.
-
Skins in general are pointless.
-
Good thing you can check profiles after the game to get their steam ID and report them.
Oh wait...
-
Simple: each of these perks (among some others) give survivors a "second chance." One alone isn't bad, but when every survivor is running multiple, it simply puts the killer in a situation where they have to play much more effectively and maybe even like a douchebag (which not all killers like doing) just to stand a chance.
It would be one thing if games were longer, but as of now... I don't know. I personally think it's a bit too much with how fast matches are.
-
People really need to read the rules before posting. No naming and shaming.
-
I'd prefer if they just kept the event around and then when they finally get around to the fix, count that as the "first day" of the event so we can actually get the full event's length worth of actually functioning things in our bloodwebs.
-
It's quite annoying when there's multiple people running it (like DS) but (also like DS) I think its effect is fine, but its conditions just need to be changed. It requires you to be within terror radius, but there's several killers that can take advantage of this to just camp with no repercussions. At least somebody can hook trade against a Bubba, but how are you supposed to reliably get somebody off hook against, say, Wraith just standing there cloaked?
There's just certain situations that feel weird such as that one I named, or with Pig and how she can crouch to remove her terror radius. I think these two second chance perks really need to, like I said before, have their conditions changed around. At the very least, start classifying certain perks as "second chance" perks or whatever name would be appropriate (sort of like how certain perks exist in a sort of "exhaustion" category) and make it to where, like exhaustion perks, you can't stack them. Either that, or perhaps allow them to be stacked but make a hard limit on how many can be brought per person/per team. I don't know, anything to prevent these things from just being stacked together to the extreme, because at that point it's too overwhelming for certain killers unless you're deciding to run a mori, which everybody always hates going against. I don't think the solution should have to be just running a mori every game and eliminating one or more people right away just to slow the game down.
-
I think hook blocking (survivor side, not killer) is high risk enough to where it makes sense they can do that. It only really works if multiple survivors take a hit usually, and it depends on the distance the killer is walking to a hook. If a killer is trying to get to a hook like 5 feet away then the survivors more than likely aren't going to be able to body block well enough to stop the killer from getting there with enough time for the survivor to wiggle out.
-
It took like more than 3 weeks for them to get to my report. Maybe it takes different amount of time for different things but... All I can say is good luck.
-
They can be whatever your imagination wants them to be.
-
I don't like Fengs usually because they're almost like how people like to describe Nea (toxic, always trying to be in your face, etc.) at least in my experiences. IDK if people just think it's funny to be obnoxious as the cutesy girl or something, but yeah... Pick Cheryl instead.
-
I agree with the crown having its own separate cosmetic slot. It could even open up a window to other "universal" cosmetics.
-
I know what you mean... I have no idea why they removed the profile viewing when their reporting to support requires their steam ID.
-
@D3_destr0y3r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1380651#Comment_1380651
...I mean... to what part?
All of it?
I mean I can agree to disagree but somethings I said are just facts
"Tunneling isn't always instant."
Your whole argument is based on this. I beg to differ. I personally believe that it isn't really tunneling if the killer is completely leaving the area and giving you room to breathe. Just because he comes back, I wouldn't consider it "tunneling." That's just the killer coming back because he heard a loud audio notification and plenty of killers will happily go for the unhooker if they have a choice between the two.
-
@Kellie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1381696#Comment_1381696
You'd think that both survivors and killers would be at least trying to help eachother get the cosmetics. But instead people are tunneling off hook and ruining matches so that survivors can't get their rewards cause they're butthurt.
I hear ya... I usually am pretty neutral about stuff like this but it sounds like a lot of people are going through the same terrible experiences, so I've just been playing the games like normal and then letting everyone go at the end. Might as well start playing like that since people are going to start using offerings that multiply bloodpoints.
-
To me the killers actually seem like they're playing relatively by the survivor rulebook in my games. I always get them hooking one person, leaving, hooking the next person, leaving, to the point where by the time we win/lose anybody who died got hooked all 3 times. To me it's my survivors in my games that are the issue. Every game I get somebody just killing themselves on hook, usually somebody who got caught within like 30 seconds.
-
@Nos37 said:
A Killer complaining about the event being hard??
I just raged quit out of a match because I took a crown, stood still long enough to see the crown disappear from the pedestal, immediately got chased by the Killer, got downed, saw the pillar with the crown still there, realized that there's no aura on my character, and watched the Killer take the crown for themself.
The #########??
I'm trying to imagine what you even are talking about. You took the crown and stood still long enough for the crown to disappear from the pedestal? Doesn't it disappear right when you take the crown?
Anyway ya, the event's been pretty rough. Any game I play there's always one survivor that just wants to kill themselves in the very beginning for some reason and make the game 3v1. I don't understand it. Like maybe they feel like if they get hooked once it decreases their odds of living and they'd rather let go and start over? I have no clue, but even after 1 hook I personally feel like there's still a decent chance to get out with a crown. I don't know, I'm just wondering where these hook suicides I'm getting multiple games in a row are coming from.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1381126#Comment_1381126
I don't care what most people 'think'. It's still incorrect. Just like how both "funner" and "funnest" are not actual words, yet people still use them in the context of words. Just because most people may think something, does not make it so. 2+2 does not = 5 simply because a vast majority of people would suddenly think so.
I already answered your question -- posting on the forums is not a transaction. Therefore, I see no use in talking about it when the discussion comes to "is this transaction free or not". It's a strawman. I have no interest in it. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You're focusing solely on the whole concept of "time is a currency" which I very, very specifically said that "Live service games" which is not forums or any other sort of media for that matter, monetizes the player's time as a form of currency. Again, the same way I could monetize your time, to trade you a game for 200 hours of yard work.
Therefore the strawman and your argument associated with it is moot. You're seeking a "gotcha!" moment. You're not going to get it. The forums are not a transaction. The only thing that gets exchanged here are words between other people, and it's certainly not for business or monetary gain.
People are welcome to think or feel it's "free" in context if they wish, however, I do not think something is free, simply because monies wasn't exchanged here. In the end, the live service game is still getting something they very much want; your time and more importantly, your investment.
You're just making idiotic comparisons now. Math equations have nothing to do with anything here and it doesn't matter if you don't care what people "think," because to them it doesn't matter what you "think." It's not the same as a math equation, it's called drawing the line in a different place. My question has everything to do with the discussion at hand. The reason I ask it is to test exactly how you view money vs. time. You just are too defensive to answer a question straight without trying to look for sinister undertones.
You just don't like it so you like to throw terms around like "strawman" and "Guess we have to agree to disagree then. I think things that don't cost money in this context are "free" and you can be a little stickler over your "it's not free cus it costs time" rule. Nothing more to say if you can't even accept this basic concept. I'm not going to continue posting in response to you when all you do is act play a victim and act like people are out to get you. Don't be so narcissistic to think such a thing, you're not worth the energy for a "gotcha!" moment. If you fail to see how your "logic" (if you'd even call it that) doesn't apply here, then there's literally 0 point in responding to you lmao. I'm not going to try to change somebody's mind of a stupid philosophical definition of something being "free" just for them to constantly act like other people are out to get them -- it's just not worth it when you obviously have your mind dead set on being bullheaded. Have fun with the thick skull.
-
I had no idea what you meant when you said Distraction.
Assuming you mean Diversion (because everybody else is saying "pebble") I'd have to go with that. I'm team pebble. I feel like it has a little bit of a learning curve but once a player gets used to it they would probably be able to pull off some funny plays with it -- especially because nobody ever runs it so nobody ever expects it.
Plus, for me, Head On, seems slightly more restrictive than Diversion simply because of the fact that with Head On, you have to not only get into a locker and wait 4 seconds, you also have to do it safely (killer not right on you) and have the killer go right in the immediate area of the locker. Even if you're running Quick and Quiet or something to make it easier to hop into a locker safely, that's still eating up more perk slots to make the one perk effective, and Diversion doesn't need any perk to complement it.
I mean, I never really use either one but that's kind of my thought process when choosing.
-
I just had a game as survivor where I ran up to one and right as I clicked to grab it, it just dissolved in front of my face.
I also played a game where I went against a Trapper on Lery's, and one of my team mates killed themselves in the very beginning of the game (which seems to be happening a lot) so I assumed I wasn't going to win. With that in mind, I just didn't care when he came up to me and instead pointed him to this crown that was in the very corner, around one of those beds with a blue thing draped over the side. Then, right as he came to look where I was pointing, it dissolved -- just as he was turning the corner to look. My first thought was "oh crap now he thinks I'm screwing with him." I couldn't help but laugh though, it was pretty funny.
-
@bluecrayon203 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1378466#Comment_1378466
I was unaware of the blood shard option for getting some characters. To be honest my query into this wasn't about "Ohh I have to pay more money for a thing" it was simply me wanting to find out if I was required to get a character that I don't own in order to complete the tome. Since general searches for this info only produced how to do the challenge and not specifically what I was inquiring it was frustrating.
What I will say that does amuse me though, is that I posed a simple question with a simple answer. "Do I need to get X to do Y?" "Yes" This has now turned into a handful of people arguing about paywalls and how certain things aren't fair, or how it does matter or doesn't matter. The idea that people so easily jumped on a bandwagon to whine about cost or defend what is "free" and what isn't. Yes Kate is cheap and affordably be it with currency, shards or auric, and one could simply buy her and do what you gotta do. My point was that I don't buy/acquire things I don't want.
Let's look at Kate for example. I don't plan on using her perks and even if I did I could eventually get them through the shrine. Kate herself I don't care for her aesthetic nor her cosmetics. Seeing as all survivors can use what every other survivor has, as in Perks, and items, each survivor is essentially a cosmetic model for a survivor. There for there isn't much of a reason to buy/acquire a survivor unless you like that survivor's aesthetic/cosmetics or don't want to wait for their perks to show up at the shrine. Personally there are three reasons why I won't get a handfull of survivors and none are money related.
- Its an aesthetic, don't care for their appearance
- Perks I have no interest in
- I don't want to get stuck doing a daily with a character I don't use. Yes I am aware that daily rituals can be re-rolled for another but if I re-roll it and if gives me one i don't like then i have to wait a day to re-roll it again.
So could I get Kate and do the challenge? Yes. Would I have a reason to have Kate afterwards? No. This is the only reason I asked about requiring to have Kate to finish a tome.
Still in my opinion I don't think tomes should require non base characters to complete. Could the challenge require a non base character perk? Yeah, since one can get perks from the shrine without owning said character.
Don't confuse unwillingness to purchase or acquire something in game as a "I shouldn't have to pay more money or time" argument.
But those are just my opinions. By all means get Kate, don't get Kate, throw a hissy fit over small things, praise things or whatever you might do, just remember its all opinion. That and it amuses me when people lose their mind over stuff.
Apologies, I should have been more clear about how I was structuring my response here. Most of that wasn't directed at you, which is why in that comment I made that little aside specifically directed to you. Most of the other stuff I'm talking about is due to other people on the forums complaining about the same thing, but they call it "pay to win" and stuff. The other user I was responding to in this thread is an example of what I'm talking about, where they try to justify complaining by saying things like "it's not truly free because X, Y, and Z."
And also, I understand not wanting to buy the character, but that's why I brought up all those other points about being able to look up the lore online, or how the challenges will stay forever even after the rift closes so it's never too late. I understand you're not just looking for everything given to you or whatever, I just personally don't think it's a huge deal for a challenge to be for a non-base character (preferably not licensed) because it just fits when you're giving lore to a certain character for them to be featured in that rift. Also, on top of all those things I listed above, you get iridescent shards simply for playing, so eventually you'll have more than enough shards, where you don't have much to spend on other than the things you don't really care for that much.
I understand your concerns and see your reasoning, but I just think there's plenty of ways around it to the point where the hate people give it usually isn't that sensible. I can see some arguments being valid, but I don't see a ton.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1380794#Comment_1380794
Posting on the forum is not a transaction. Nothing is being exchanged here. The "forum" is not an item I'm receiving. What you are doing is taking my words out of my mouth here, which I don't exactly appreciate.
The problem here is you are arguing about the definition of "free", when you should be arguing about the definition of what "transaction" is. The problem is, a transaction is not "free". If it is free, then it's not a transaction: "An instance of buying or selling something; a business deal."
The purchasing of Kate requires a currency. One of those currencies you earn by spending your time on the game, which you can then spend said currency to purchase her.
That is literally what a transaction is. And the exchanging of one good for another does not fit the definition of what "free" is: "Without cost or payment."
Now, if you got say, 9,000 shards for literally doing nothing, just as a random event gift or whatever, and then spent those 9,000 shards on Kate, then yes, I would agree that would be getting her for free. You got 9,000 currency for free, and then turned that currency in to get Kate. But that is not what is happening.
I'm not taking words out of your mouth. You seem to view money the same as time, because you speak of them both as if they can be applied in the same way which they can't. Sorry you can't explain what you mean very well. You bring up "spending" time as if it's the same as "spending" money. Therefore, I ask the question, if this forum is not free to post on, because you are "spending" time here. You keep avoiding what I'm asking probably because you don't have a good response to it. Once again, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking you a question and expecting an answer, based off what I asked you. It has nothing to do with "what you said." It's just me asking a question. So chill out with your stupid accusations, and feel free to actually answer the question.
I see the difference in what you're saying. I just don't think it changes a thing. Like I said, most people don't give a rat's ass if you think iridescent shards are real life currency because they're not. When people are referring to "paying" for something they're usually talking about money, at least in the context of "pay to win." Iridescent shards are something that you gain over time, which cost you 0 money. Therefore, you're spending nothing but time to get the good. Not paying currency for it, other than virtual currency which isn't real currency.
Like you said, if it's free, it's not a transaction, and when most people saying "free" mean that they don't have to spend money, then your example is not a "transaction." When people are talking about "free" vs. "pay" in this context, they are talking about money. Nobody is thinking of shards when they think "money." What your example boils down to is "I spent time on this game and earned these points, therefore if I use those points to unlock a character that means this is officially a transaction!" No. You still didn't spend money on anything, you paid nothing. I just disagree that shards are even a currency, unless as I said, you consider time to also be currency, because shards are just gained by spending time on the game. Not money, time.
Did I mention it doesn't cost money?