Incarnate
Incarnate
About
- Username
- Incarnate
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Alight, so @not_Queen, hasn't chimed in, perhaps she don't want to?
Maybe @Janick can chime in on the matter instead? Would be great with an actual dev response regarding this issue.
-
@Mrbombastic said:
Devs dont care enough about disabled people all they care about is moneyThey don't care enough about the players in general, medical problems or not, they just want your money!
Really they don't, there have been lots of posts with various medical issues, including a post from me about it, not even a single response from a dev, even one was tagged several times, no response at all! -
@SadonicShadow said:
how on earth is this a problem. You dont have to mash your keyboard until it breaks. All it takes is a consistent, steady pace of taps.Not really that steady, my own personal experience has been it has to be a lot more rapidly, like you have to be tapping it rather fast. I can see it being a problem, not so much as game mechanical balance issue, but as an issue because it wears your space button a lot faster, lets just say I'm using a mechanical keyboard in the more expensive price range - the Razer Ornata Chroma, the one I'm using is actually a replacement due to a different issue with it that was covered by the warranty, but it's not more than a few months old and my space bar already is beginning to not always register input, which isn't just in DbD but also with normal use. Furthermore, don't play survivor as much as I play killer. So yes I can see this more of a problem due to this. I think it would be a lot better to actually not have this struggle mechanic, instead perhaps have it as a skill check that would become increasingly more difficult, and for those who're great at skill checks won't have an issue with it being that way, and those with issues with skill checks will just get more practice if they get hooked. Besides, the struggle mechanic don't stress out the most of us, it's even more boring than doing gens, it just destroys the spacebar / X button - one game at a time!
If they wanted people be engaged more while beeing hooked and on struggle, why not engage the survivor with a mind game vs. the entity? Where with each failure, you lost more health than you would otherwise, thats a great incentive to play along, to stay alive for a bit longer as opposed to a faster death.
-
I actually have made a suggestion for the Territorial Imperative perk and monstrous shrine, it's quite the buff.
Maybe you could get some inspiration from that - https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/15414/in-my-opinion-they-should-change-monstrous-shrine-and-territorial-imperative#latest. I think you will like it. -
Consider the possibility - they don't know themselves!
-
@Utna said:
You guessed wrong. When I'm saying "rude kids", I'm talking about survivors of course. Killer can't do much to annoy me anymore ... beside early game face camping (but I didn't seen for ages). Now what I call toxic survivors are not people playing to win, because every one tries ; Toxic people are bullying other players just for the sake of their own sadistic fun, or blood point farming while holding someone else hostage into the game.
To illustrate what I mean, here's an example I ran into a couple of days ago:
Playing as the clown, I succeeded into having the last generators relatively close to each other ... so I started patrolling them and kicking them with Overcharge. The problem is those generators where in cornfield and I suck at spotting survivors from a distance, but all in all, when generators are close like that, I catch at least 1 survivor eventually.
Turns out the remaining survivors where good at hiding and they where probably SWF on voice comms, because right after each time I've finished kicking one generator, the opposite one Overcharged, letting me know that I had to run over there and stop its progression (or game over). After a while and since the the coordination between the Overcharge notifications was flawless, I figured that they didn't even tried to fully repair a generator. Those survivors where just having fun making me run around in circles while they knew exactly where I was and had plenty of time to hide out of sight. This lasted around 5-10 minutes until I decided for the first time ever to diconnect, because I 'wasn't playing a DBD game anymore ...
NOR WAS THEY !
So here, this is why I think ethics are important ; it is important because some people needs to be constantly reminded that trapping someone into a situation where he can be farmed, but can't do anything about it is SO WRONG. If this was us playing a boardgame in real life, someone having this kind of behaviour would be immediately spotted and banned for some time, and I hardly see why it would be different in video games.
You nailed it pretty good though - "Toxic people are bullying other players just for the sake of their own sadistic fun, or blood point farming while holding someone else hostage into the game."
People should play the game and not some other toxic game within the game! I agree, players who're bullying other players should be punished for it!
-
Firstly, that is latency, and it's because the killer is the host!
Secondly, they've expressed that at this point it would take too much time, effort and resources to even change the game to support dedicated servers - which to me sounds like a bad excuse, besides it something that is a very important QoL improvement. -
@arcticxlia said:
I'm really interested what's your opinion on the new killer and Survivor? And their perks?What do you guys think?
The killer's power comes with some quite severe and unjustified drawbacks, because they're not merited by the benefits of the power. Unless the devs actually have listened to the ton of feedback and suggestions given to them in the PTB 2.2.0, which is to the contrary of what they've expressed, if so then all we say is subject to change. However with that being said, they expressed not long after the PTB 2.2.0 release that the killer in the current form was what they intended to release, possibly with minor changes and needed bug fixes. So the new killer is extremely like to be released as is, and if so, it will be a very disappointing addition to the killers, it won't be viable, it's power can even work against you as the killer player. They say the mind-games is the new killer's strongest point, but it's most certainly also one of the most volatile ones as is can directly hurt your situation as the killer. Furthermore, there are various things about the power that doesn't make sense considering what the killer actually is, which also one of the power's very severe and unjustified drawbacks.
The only good thing about this killer is it's aesthetics and overall visual and audio quality, they did an amazing job on that part, for sure. But thats not enough for me to actually want to buy the dlc and support them further with real money - simply because they refuse to make the killers viable and equally strong when compared to each other, and they don't want to the necessary to fix the balance issues with this game.There are some strong perks, most certainly as mentioned above.
The new map looks great, but does have some issues, but they might be fixed before release - hopefully.
-
It's released when it's released, and you can be sure BHVR will announce it via official channels when it's released - so if you can't find it there, then you can automatically deconfirm it!
-
Flip the numbers - though they should be tweaked. What you suggested would be too strong, and also wouldn't make sense considering you're supposed to prove yourself against the odds.EnititysServant said:Just a random thought that went through my head so I'm gonna make it quick here
Perk in tier 3 example
4 people alive = 9% speed to all actions
3 people alive = 6% speed to all actions
2 people alive = 3% speed to all actions
If you are the last survivor it'll stay at 3%
Have other ideas ? Please let me know
4 survivors alive = 1% to all action speeds
3 survivors alive = 3% to all action speeds
2 survivors alive = 6% to all action speeds
1 survivor alive = 9% to all action speeds
I think this is better.
It could also have added that if within the presence of other survivors the chance of a skill check appearing is slightly increased for each other survivor present. This would make it more viable when more survivors are still alive. If no survivor is within the presence the perk holder, then the chance of skill checks appearing is signicantly increased. -
@AlphaKing0077 said:
I see people everywhere saying that the dlc is releasing tomorrow.. .was this confirmed somewhere and why are people saying it?Because they're saying it in relation to when the last dlc was released, and to create hype I guess.
Out of curiousity, did you create two threads with the same question? Because I've noticed several times now that duplicate posts have been made, I'm suspecting an issue with the forum.
-
Yeah, this would seem like corrupt data, but it could be on BHVR's end, but just to be sure, try verifying your game's cache. IF it comes up with it failing to validate any file, then it's most like was corrupt data. Which of course should be reported in the correct section, but a mod should move it.
-
@Kamikaze_Rose said:
I want leaderboards as much as the next player, but I'm not daft enough to think it won't quadruple the try-hardness of survs and killers alike. Expect DCs, farming, camping, and all our other favorite DBD activities to increase tenfold.They shouldn't implement something like this until they actually have a casual mode where ranks are disabled, and no KYF doesn't count, as this is a free mode where everything is unlocked at it's highest tier and it requires friends to play with. I'm talking about a casual mode thats basically like the main mode, but without the ranks. Especially because there are a lot of players who're not interested in ranked play, and implementing leaderboards will just make it much worse for them, exactly as you @Kamikaze are pointing out, and more.
-
@Peasant said:
Well, the latest addition to Dead by Daylight is predicted to arrive tomorrow, September 11th. Is anyone excited for the patch overall?Not particularly. But some of the perks are really strong and interesting, new map is also great looking with a lot of detail. But with the new killer having so severe unjustified drawbacks, the devs being unwilling to fix her power before release considering the ton of feedback and suggestions they've received in the PTB 2.2.0, is enough for me to not be particularly excited.
@TheHourMan said:
if you think that Austrailia has it now, try changing your download region in Steam and checking for yourself instead of believing a rumor.That is actually against their ToS, and could merit a ban, so I wouldn't recommend it.
-
I think the issue with SWF should be dealt with, problem is that it will split the playerbase, which will affect queue times tremendously for the worse, if the option to opt out of SWF matches is implemented.
Instead I think they should seek to fix the unfairness and unbalance it creates, by first implementing more communicative options for non-swf groups so that it is more even. Then they should penalize the swf groups game mechanically based on how many they are, to even out the unfairness and advantage they have. Because the devs can't take the edge from them that comes from being in an swf, and they can't buff the killer either UNLESS it's a FULL SWF group, however, it would be much better to impose game mechanical disadvantages as it works regardsless of group combination (mixed sfw and non-swf groups). -
@Dreamnomad said:
Darkest Night: The map is pitch black. Survivors all have flashlights that are permanently in the "on" position. The killer has night vision up to 15 feet.This would actually be broken, because the flashlights would reveal their locations at all times, if anything they should just have infinite available energy.
I like your idea, unfortunately it would take a lot of time end effort to do, and I don't think they will be able to do it, simply because currently they can only squeeze out a new killer, a new survivor and map every chapter, and they're focusing on fixing more important issues, like bugs, glitches, making it hax free, etc.
Furthermore, similar ideas have already been suggested, including by me, and I believe they addressed them in general on a devstream that they would love to do something like those, but had more pressing matters - which is basically what I wrote above. However with that being said, I see no harm in putting as many of these ideas out there, so in case they want to adopt the idea and run with it, they have as much inspiration as possible to make them interested and have something to work with.
-
I wonder if it's possible to do background fill colors as well, could be very interesting.
-
@not_Queen said:
We got a lot of feedback about lobbies and players seem to love the changes. (and yes, we know, the Clown theme is getting old) Sadly chosing your own lobby theme isn't planned.Maybe stick a post-it note with the words "Note to self - remember to implement own lobby theme" on the desk of the who's one in charge if it
Most certainly a QoL feature
-
The country where vikings hail from!
-
The Country where vikings hail from!
-
@MegaWaffle said:
@Kenshin said:
@MegaWaffle said:
@Kenshin said:
tru3 started a disgusting witch hunt with that only because his big ego got hurt. this ppl are getting harassed and insulted like crazy now, hell i even saw death threats against them. this guys did a terrible thing and should be punished for it (but tru3 didnt report them ingame what was a mistake) and tru3 also needs to get a punishment for making this guys a public target and even making a video about it. at this point he isnt better than ochido.He posted not to witch hunt them and even said it in the video. Tru3 cannot control the immature children who decide to act tough on the internet.
and thats why he shouldn't make such a big fuss, report them in game and just move on. it was only one game. but his ego got hurt so its a big deal and he even needs to make a video about it - disgusting.
You do realize the people in this video are streamers who videotaped themselves doing it. They clearly didn't mind that people saw this behavior. If Tru3 had used this video to harass them that would be different yet the very people who were being toxic had incriminated themselves. So no Tru3 didn't do anything wrong in this video. It would be like showing a video of Ochido being toxic, the guy has video evidence he himself meaning he clearly doesn't care if people see it.
I agree, they made the choice to do this to a well known streamer, while even recording themselves whilst doing it. And yes, had he wanted to start a witch hunt, it would've been a very different video, and would also be very much unlike him.
@Kenshin - The reason wasn't due to a hurt ego... "Please do not witch hunt anyone I am showing this to show the mental gymnastics of a toxic player. I do not condone anyone to witch hunt and find out who these guys are. I used audio to show the backwards logic to justify being a prick." ~Tru3Ta1ent. Not matter how much you argue, this wasn't his fault, decided to do this while he was streaming, furthermore you cannot hold someone accountable for other people's actions. He didn't start a witch hunt, and he even tried to prevent it! So Kenshin if you holding him accountable, some might begin to hold you accountable if some begin to harass Tru3Ta1ent after you trying hold him accountable, calling him a witch hunter and such, even if you don't have anything to do with it. See what I'm getting at? But the difference here though is that you're actually being an instigator.
-
@Kenshin said:
thats like punshing someone in the face and not expecting that the person will get hurt. doesnt matter if he says dont bother them. his toxic community will does it anyways. its commen sense that this would happen you dont need to be a fortune teller for that. also even a streamer like him has to use the ingame report system if he wants them to get punished and he didnt. no exceptions. he rather calls the devs "them bi.tches" and makes a video about it.Still you cannot hold him accountable for their actions, especially even when he did try avoid having them do that especially. He's not at fault for their actions, this is typical by the way, for streamers to be held accountable for their followers actions because of something that happens on their stream, which they had no control over! Seriously, just stop it! He had no control over what happened on his stream, and like he also said, they were stupid to it to a streamer while streaming - and it's not so weird that some people the get like some of his followers, because they're just as tired of that behaviour as the rest of us, but unfortunately they took it too far. But what his followers does, is not his responsibility, no matter what you say in this matter, it isn't.
-
@TheBean said:
Suck it up buttercups.... No one said all the survivors have to play nice together.Though you are supposed to work together, no matter what you say, thats how it was designed, and that is what they balancing after. If people don't work together, then it's just going to be that much harder, no matter the reason. If people are going to be petty and not being able to put those things aside and behave a bit more mature, then thats on them, and perhaps they shouldn't play!
-
@Kenshin said:
tru3 started a disgusting witch hunt with that only because his big ego got hurt. this ppl are getting harassed and insulted like crazy now, hell i even saw death threats against them. this guys did a terrible thing and should be punished for it (but tru3 didnt report them ingame what was a mistake) and tru3 also needs to get a punishment for making this guys a public target and even making a video about it. at this point he isnt better than ochido.Are you sure he was the one who started it and not just one or more his followers? Because if it's the case of the followers, then you can hold him accountable for their actions unless he specifically told them to do this.
-
@NextKillerSpongebob said:
Is this a new thing? I've been getting the ''Your comment will be posted after it's approval''. It's really annoying and I want that shid to go away...I'm getting that too sometimes, I think 2 or 3 times in total now, I believe this happens sometimes when you edit a post.
-
I think they should let us choose our own theme for the lobbies we see, so if we like a particular theme we can have that as well.
-
@HP150 said:
People are way too sensitive in this game. Had this happen to me before, I laughed it off. It's just one match. Being able to get revenge is one of the best things about this game, even if it is self sabotaging (IE, hard camping a tea bagging, bming survivor while all his buddies pop gens left and right).This isn't about being sensitive, basically what you're saying here is that it's acceptable that survivors should treat a fellow survivor player this way, IF they know it that it's also killer player - which it by the way isn't. This falls under the category of unsportsmanlike behaviour, and is a bannable offense. If you have a grudge, then settle it a legitimate way, like win the next match against them. Secondly, matches wouldn't exist without killer players as they're the host.
-
@KiraElijah said:
It would be so difficult being nurseWhy so? What would make it difficult?
@SenzuDuck said:
Everyone would run around M&A Scratched mirror myers and no one would win because you cant play against that, peeking doesn't help in a chase, it doesn't help when you're in corridors, it just wouldn't work my dude.Why exactly wouldn't it work? You're going to be a bit more specific than that. I don't think it would be as you say, as there are a lot of things that would change as a result of such a change, including survivors playing more cautiously, survivors paying much more attention, etc.
-
It's not the streamer who's toxic, but the other survivor players, which should be banned for unsportsmanslike behaviour.
-
@Ryuti said:
@Master said:
@Ryuti said:
We don't disclose the exact amount so people aren't counting every DC to stay just under the threshold. It's nothing you'd hit unless you intentionally go out of your way to DC a lot though.
So intentionally DCing by derankign and doing this regularly seems ok? That means that the DC ratio must be above 50%, that would be insane
I don't think I said that. You'll definitely hit the threshold if you're going around DCing to derank.
I don't know if the devs realize this, but there are so many people not interested in playing in high ranks, or playing with rank at all. This is a clear indication that people want a more casual version of standard play, which is not KYF. People will try to derank for it, may even stop playing for a while just to derank without getting banned - which by the way in my opinion is just stupid, banning people because they just want to play more casually. Besides, how can the devs know when they're banning someone, that the individual in question actually deranked legitimately..
Example
You have a player who got into the high ranks through playing SWF, but then plays a lot of matches solo where the player in question deranks over the threshold, where the player only deranked because he/she was not on his/her own good enough to stay in those ranks. Furthermore, they have no idea what amount effort was required to reach the high ranks for the particular player in question in the first place. Where they have no idea of this player when the deranking took place, if there were factors that legitimately affected his/her performance, like for instance playing while not being well, simply not putting as much effort into playing as there was when the player reached the high ranks. Besides, bad internet connection, internet or network issues could also be the reason for many dc's.
In regards to internet/network issues, personally I've had an issue with my network were suddenly the networks adapter would reset 10+ times, all due to a windows driver update, where it's only recently I narrowed down that the new windows driver was the culprit and after rolling back I haven't had an issue.
So honestly, they shouldn't be banning people, they should acknowledge why people want to derank, and fix accordingly, so if that means a casual standard mode, then they should implement that, which really shouldn't be all that hard. Plus, there really should be an unranked casual mode for those that don't want to play that competitively.
-
@Mycroft said:
Yes. The developers fully endorse this kind of behavior.No they don't, because that falls under the category of unsportsmanslike behaviour.
There is big difference between endorsing it and not doing anything about it.
Granted they have weird logic as they allow t-bagging, which is trolling behaviour, and yet they ban people being trolling behaviour. However, if Tru3Ta1ent decided to actually report them, then he'd have video footage as evidence and they might actually be facing a temp ban for it, and they should!I haven't heard them say or express at any point that they endorse this kind of behaviour. If you have, please provide a link for the reference, and I'll gladly check it out. Not trying to defend the devs, because they do have some weird logic when it comes to these things, but thats not because they have bad intentions, but because they apparently doesn't understand it. So in all fairness, don't say it unless you can prove it. I know from experience that people that have done stuff like that, who were reported got temp bans, and there were also some who actually got permanent bans, depending on the severity.
-
@Mycroft said:
That's the 9000 pound elephant in the room. SWF is so broken apparently it even kills solo survs.Hence why I said, that perhaps the way to go about this is to give game mechanical disadvantages for being in SWFs based on how many is in the group. But at the same time also implement ways for non-swf groups to communicate with each other, like through voiced commands, emotes/gestures and that sort of thing. The idea to implement perks that help with seeing teammates and such to help balance it for the non-swfs, doesn't even remotely help, furthermore, that is really just a bandaid solution, which actually requires perk slots wasted just to get this.
-
@Peanits said:
@Mycroft said:
@Peanits said:
I'll play Devil's Advocate.Who's going to opt to play against well coordinated survivors? I'm willing to bet not many.
What's that going to do to SWF queue times? It'll make it go through the roof. Remember the beta? That'll just happen again. People will just dodge lobbies until they get in the lobby with their friends, driving up queue times for everyone in the process. And then when you do end up against a group, you won't even know, and people will still complain and accuse them of being a group.Well then, I suggest the fundamental advantage that SWF provides be fixed. The way the discussion goes whenever the topic is even mentioned is the issue. It's like asking someone if they'd rather go to a bar and fight vs 4 dudes in an alley or just one.
People keep blatantly missing the obvious 9000 pound elephant staring them in the face. It's unfair. In a game already titled against them these teams get even more advantage handed to them.
No one wants that. No one wants to participate in an already frustrating experience having the cherry on top of it being viewed as ok. It's not ok. We knew it wasn't ok when it was implemented. If you don't wan't people to opt out of it, dodge it, completely leave the game altogether then make it better.
All I see people do is tell killers to get over it.
That's the much more reasonable way to look at it, and it also happens to be what the plan is. Solo survivors would be brought up to the same level as SWF (in terms of communication, giving them tools like kindred as a baseline to help co-ordinate saves, for example), and then buffing killers up to compensate. That way you level the playing field and can buff killers without leaving solo survivors in the dust.
That doesn't bring other survivors up to the same level, not even close, and furthermore, those survivors actually have to spend perk slots to be able to have that. The only thing that would bring the up to a more comparable level would be if they had access to voiced commands, more gestures, etc. But this is still not enough to be even close, because VoIP offers so much more and gives a much better edge than those voiced commands, gestures, etc. ever could. But still, that is the next best thing. But it still doesn't fix the real issue with a fully coordinated SWF group.
Maybe they should consider changing some of the mechancs when its a FULL or mixed, those in the SWF they get some kind of game mechanical disadvantage, which would make them think twice about if they want to play SWF. Because you can't very easily compensate the killer without disrupting the balance, especially if it's a mixed group and not a full SWF group.
Also, I think the survivors should have more options to communicate with each other, like voiced commands, more gestures, etc. It's laughable that there is currently only those two gestures in the game, considering it is team based game. Plus I think it would add more depth to the game, even if it might give their location away. Because at least then, the survivors has the option to my directly communicate but at the cost of revealing their location.
//Edit - Fixed a few typos.
-
Whether it's the correct date or not, I'm not really excited because I know what is being released, more specifically, I am not too excited about specific content being released, because I know about various issues with it, which they seemingly have decided to not fix.
-
I agree, killer players should have a way to opt out of SWF, even if it means queue times being longer.
Problem is though, there are so many people playing SWF, and if the majority of the killer players opt out, guess what happens, the game will slowly die, because people can't play with their friends in normal matches only, and gradually people will stop playing the game because they get tired of not being able to get matches. -
@SenzuDuck said:
I really don't think you understand what a fuster cluck this game would be if survivor can't see anything just say it out loud.Survivor. Cant. See. Anything.
like theres a reason they're in third person, it's not about "ohh but if they can't see it they shouldn't be able to".Everyone would run around M&A Scratched mirror myers and no one would win because you cant play against that, peeking doesn't help in a chase, it doesn't help when you're in corridors, it just wouldn't work my dude.
You're making it into something it wouldn't be - they would have to play differently, and adjustments would have to be made, but saying they wouldn't be able to see anything is far from how it actually would be.
What I was saying with that was in relation to if they're in first person perspective and have something that is blocking their view, like a haybale or wall, they're not supposed to be able to see whats on the other side from that position.
I'm not saying peeking would help in those situations, but what I am saying people would adapt to it and find ways to counter it, or through experience be able to predict what the killer might do and then pure and simple outplay the killer. Like I said earlier, you're attributing way too many negatives in relation to how it would actually be. If survivors were having 1st person perspective, then people would play differently, the game would be balanced differently, and it wouldn't suffer from all of those issues with looping, juking and other issues. Bloodlust would probably not even be a necessity either, because juking and looping would be more difficult.
@kone19 said:
The devs tried that first and it was completely unbalanced and didn’t let the survivors hideThat doesn't mean that it wouldn't work, that just means they should have made some other changes to make it viable, implement some things to alleviate the problems, instead of just completely writing it off. This is a typical thing many new devs do, they test things out very early and quickly discards if it seems to not work instead of trying various things to make it work, or try it at later point, plus also there is the fact that when those things are being tested early on, the devs themselves, including their testers have very, very limited amount of experience with the game, so as such saying it was test and it didn't work - I'd question that, because I'm quite that it could've been made to work without too many things needed.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
You clearly have no idea my friend - do you know how absolutely disorientating and puke inducing it would be to constantly change fov while playing the game?Not to mention anyone with motion sickness can now not play this game. I know people that can't play nurse because of what happens when shes blinking and you want this to happen on the constant? Jeeeeeze dude.
That certainly depends on how fast those changes in FOV happens. But either way, I'm just point out that they can make changes to the FOV so it's more limited, the changing FOV was just a suggestion on how they could change it.
@SenzuDuck said:
You know when you get thos hay bails that are close to each other, and you're inbetween them, if the survivor is in first person how do they see anything? They'd be staring straight into the wall of the hay bail.Not to mention pallets are all based on timing, you can't predict anything as a survivor in first person.
Why should you be able to see something you shouldn't? If something blocks your view then you're not supposed to see what it blocks. But again, peeking should be implemented if 1st person perspective is implemented for survivors.
In regards to pallets, why shouldn't you be able to predict when to drop the pallet just because your vision is in first person perspective?
-
@Delfador said:
Killers are able to see in front of themselves which they need to.Survivors need to be able to see behind in order to avoid the killer. Survivors need to be able to see their environment in order to lead the chase to somewhere else. This is why they need 3rd person view.
Killers on the other hand will always follow survivors.
There is a massive difference between them.
Actually, they don't need to be able to see the killer to avoid the killer through 3rd person perspective, they just need to play differently. Even with 1st person perspective, they could easily lead the chase somewhere else.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
if killers saw in third person no one would be able to hide, and you know what that means, he killers that complain about survivors not juking wouldn't have a leg to stand on because how can you juke when the killer has a 360 degree view at all times.Who says it's going to be completely as it would be with the survivors 3rd person perspective, it could have a limited FOV - like being more narrow when moving, even more narrow in a chase, but more wide when standing still.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
You know people are bonkers when they think this game would ever work if both perspectives were in 1st person, or they were switched.It would work, but it would need some adjustments, and people would have to play differently and more cautiosly. People usually adapt!
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you ever counter Myers if you can't peek corners.You could, but it would be crude, it's called sidestepping. Though it's one of the adjustments I think would be necessary, implementing being able to actually peek corners and edges without having expose yourself fully through sidestepping.
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter huntress if you can't dodge hatchets.That would be through listening, you can hear when they're incoming, secondly as noted above, people would play differently because they would need to. Furthermore, you could actually face her head on if she's winding up to throw, and dodge when she throws it. You can still dodge it even with your back turned, because you can still hear it. Besides, they could even make perks around this sort of thing, so if the were an incoming attack to one side you'd see something flashing from that side.
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter billy if you can't look behind you.As with the Huntress, you can hear when he's incoming with his revved chainsaw, and the closer he gets the more sure you will be that he's targetting you.
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter clown if you can't see where his bottles are thrown.Just because you're in first person doesn't mean you suddenly can't see you know, it means you just have to face the direction you want to look.
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter hag if you can't look around for traps.Again, 1st person perspective doesn't make you blind, you can still see, and I'd say you'd have a much better chance of spotting them when look in their direction as your view is more focused and up close.
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter nurse if you can't try and predict where shes aiming.You can, but you have to face her to do so, or try to mindgame her, thats still absolutely possible even with your vision limited to 1st person perspective.
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter trapper if you can't look around for his traps.As with hag and her traps, you can certainly look for his traps, and you'd be more likely to find them up close as your vision is more focused and up close!
@SenzuDuck said:
How would you counter wraith if you can't predict which side of the wall he's going to charge at.Why shouldn't you be able to predict just because your perspective is in first person?
@SenzuDuck said:
How fun would it be to stare at a generator while you're doing it.Here they should be doing an adjustment, so that you can look around, but still first person perspective.
@SenzuDuck said:
How fun would it be to stare in front of you on the hook and not look around to see if you're being rescued so you can prepare.You can still look around, part of this would also keep you on edge, because you don't know what is going on!
@SenzuDuck said:
How would would it be to heal a survivor and stare straight into their back not knowing if a killer is comingWhy should you know if the killer is coming? And as with the generator question, you should still be able to look around in first person perspective.
@SenzuDuck said:
How fun would it be to be hit by a killer and get that speed burst without being able to control it properly.Why wouldn't you be able to control it just because your vision is now 1st person perspective?
It seems you're attributing way too many negatives to this without actually considering that people would actually be forced to play differently. Compare it to other first person games - you're forced to play based on what you can see and what you know.
But as pointed out by @Master, that it should be in first person perspective for both sides, although I think that it's worth considering that the killer has an option to use third person perspective when standing still, with a more limited FOV, as it 4 v 1, and is being empowered by the entity.
-
@Delfador said:
I don't agree with survivors having first person perspective.The game is not balanced around that. Chasing is the main part of the game and most of the maps are not suitable for hiding. Killers are always behind the survivors so they don't need to look behind while survivors have to look behind in order to see the killer and if they can't, it will make mind games a lot easier for the killer. Yes, game is unbalanced in favor of the survivors but not that much I think. Imagine survivors not being able to look behind to avoid hatchets or chainsaws.
Killers should be able to choose first person and third person though.
The game is not balanced, I agree.
Maybe a lot of maps aren't suitable for hiding, but in that case, it's on BHVR, because survivors should be able to have good places hide, which I think they already do - of course there could be more. Not having 3rd person forces a survivor to play a lot different. They definitely would have to implement a way to peek out from edges and corners.
In regards to be able to avoid hatches and chainsaws, I think that would come with experience just as it does now, because you can still hear when a hatchet, chainsaw or even just a basic melee attack is incoming. And it's not like you won't know if the chainsaw is incoming or very close to you.
I can understand why people would be on the fence in regards to having it switched, but I do think this has to do with people having gotten too used to that way of playing, in my opinion it should never have been this way in the first place. Players will adapt to it, I'm sure of it, because they always adapt. Had it been 1st person perspective to begin with, people wouldn't have been complaining, they would just've been playing the game.
-
@Tizzle said:
You're right it would have a tremendous impact as in completely break the game.Why would it? The balance is already skewed in favor of the survivors because of it, considering they're 4 against 1, why do they need it? Why should they be given extrasensory perceptive powers? Because that's what 3rd person perspective is for a human.
@Visionmaker said:
In a horror game, I agree.But then I wouldn't be able to check out my sexy cosmetics anymore, so I'm torn.
I think when crouching, survivors should transition to 3rd person, while walking and running becomes 1st person.
Well they could make an option for the character to do a pose, where when doing this pose you get a limited 3rd person perspective of the character and the character is locked in this pose for a short duration - similar to that of an animated emote - basically an option to inspect your character while playing.
@SovererignKing said:
Visionmaker said:In a horror game, I agree.
But then I wouldn't be able to check out my sexy cosmetics anymore, so I'm torn.
I think when crouching, survivors should transition to 3rd person, while walking and running becomes 1st person.
This sounds good. Though to the OP, no way should Killer be third person. You wouldn’t be able to hide at all as Survivor.
Of course you would be able to hide, plus the killer can only be at place at a time, it doesn't have to be as wide an FOV as it is currently for the survivors. Furthermore, as a killer the player would tend to focus on the character that is being targeted, thus not paying as much attention to the other survivors. It could also be made so as soon the the killer is on the move, the FOV narrows, and widens after a very short delay when standing still.
In the OP I didn't mention anything about the specifics in regards to if the 1st and 3rd person perspectives were switched, but I certainly do think they would need to tweak it for both sides. But it is unreasonable that survivors has 3rd person perspective when they're actually outnumbering the killer, plus it ruins immersion for the survivors.
-
Guess the only thing left to do is KKSF, the gamemode where several killers get their revenge on SWFs - Killers Kill Surviving Friends.
-
@laKUKA said:
We are tired of seeing how unfair it is to play in this way without consent.The without consent part is actually a very good point, it's not like the killer has a choice.
I think there should be a casual mode WITHOUT ranks, for several reasons, one being if people want to play casually and not having to put in a lot effort and energy into a trial, either because they don't want to or because they don't have the energy to do so. How people are being match maked is also a reason why there should be a casual mode, as this mixes casual players and competive players, both survivors and killers alike, which is unreasonable for those players who're playing competively, as they will be putting in the extra effort and their teammates won't be, and it will affect the outcome of the trial. Likewise, it's also unreasonable as the killer if you just want to play casually, that you're more likely to be facing defeat because you're being match maked with players who're going to be playing competively. Additionally, it really could use that feature for people who want to practive the game without losing rank. There are more reasons, but these are some of the more important reasons. Kill your friends does not count as a casual, as you're not being match maked with random people.With regards to the SWF, I think they should make the available for killers if they want to accept SWF groups or not, though obviously this will have a huge impact on available matches for SWF groups, but in all fairness it should be this way, as it's not reasonable that killers are facing groups of players that aren't supposed to have that level of communication, it's not designed that way. Which obviously also brings up the part with other non-swf groups not having this option to communicate directly with each other.
-
In general when it comes to purchasable cosmetics in games, they're usually way too expensive considering they're digital, and the company have no extra costs directly associated with that partically item, once it has been paid for, produced and set up in the digital shop - they will never need a large warehouse to store those digital items in, and they can litterally keep producing it without having to do a thing once it's all set up in their digital store, due to digital automation. So to be fair, digital cosmetics are way too expensive in most games - when you can spend way more on the cosmetics than you can on the game and it's expansions, then something isn't right.
I will say this though, it's always a good thing to have the option to be able to pay for it with real currency as opposed to virtual currency that you've worked to optain, like through grinding - and vice versa.
If prices were lower, I'm sure more would buy, it would just mean more sales volume as opposed less sales volume but with the same amount of profit, with the former more people would be happier and would have more fun.
And with regards to the incentitive to get auric cells - with the auric cells only cosmetics, shouldn't really be necessary because at level 100 you would've gained 25,220 Shards, which will be gone rather quick if used on cosmetics, and as far as I know, you won't be gaining more shards afterwards. Plus also this assuming the player doesn't use shards on the Shrine of Secrets either.
-
@kone19 said:
I have to give this a read but from the title alone yes. I’m sick of my level 4 single perk survivors getting matched with tier three stacked killers from getting 4 to level 10-13 for the trophies but no strong main to share perksYou definitely should! I will look forward to your input and feedback.
-
Actually, thats not entirely correct.Wolff_Bringer said:The Spirit World is a world from the entitus. So no survivor WILL get there, since the entitus wouldnt want them to be there. And the entitus dont want to give survivors too much of a power, like phasing into the spirit world for not being hit by the killer.
But in fact, as the survivor gets borrowed time, the entitus may give the survivors supernatural abilitys...
"The Spirit World is on a different plane of existence to the Entity's Realm. Its appearance is identical to the Entity's Realm, but those who traverse it see black fog covering their peripheral vision. Notably, beings within the Spirit World cannot interact with beings and objects outside of it."
Well, thats actually also part of what I wrote, but basically, it should be temporarily when they enter it, so they automatically forced back whenever what enables them to enter/be there no longer supports it, like for instance when an item runs out of energy.Sarief said:entering it is one thing.
what about exiting?
Of course it's an interesting question if they were able to enter and remain there without limit. -
I completely agree.
In my opinion, addons should not be a resource, it should be that they can be freely switched between, without losing them when entering a match, and the addons should be balanced around this. However some addons add a bit more than just functionality, some have a greater impact on the gamebalance. The same can be said about the addons for survivors, where if addons is changed for killers, so they will want it to be so they can freely switch the addons and not lose them after a match. I think addons should be about playstyle.
-
The selection pattern - Anyone with a strong enough emotion, desire and intent to kill, especially with hate and vengeance as the primary catalyst.
