Incarnate
Incarnate
About
- Username
- Incarnate
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@azazer said:
Ya not the answers I was hoping for when I asked, but they seem to understand that the high risk/reward ratio is off as the work is too great on the killer side right nowWell, they don't know how to fix it, all they do is make small modifications and hope it's enough to fix it, instead of realizing that they need more than that to actually fix the issue. Plus when they say they're going to completely rework a killer or a mechanic it usually just means modify a few values, which just doesn't cut it to merit a complete rework.
-
@Carnival_C_ said:
Killer's balance is not good.
Bloodlust should be further strengthened, we can not understand weakening.There are a lot of things aren't good balancewise, RNG being one of them. I do think they they should improve a lot of the core mechanics, bloodlust in my opinion is just a bandaid solution because they don't know how to deal with looping meta. Honestly, I don't think they know how to deal with all of those issues.
-
@Iceman said:
@IncarnateBased off the Q&A session with the dev there was some interesting ideas on hex totems that may get implemented in the game.
- Making them lower so it is harder to find
- Make it where it does not appear no where near a survivor or generator.
And there was another but you can take a look at the stream for yourself. There’s thread where it shows exactly the time on the discussion about it
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/16785/youtube-q-a-session-4#latest
Still, those are in no way something that will improve the hexplay to a point where it can be considered viable.
Because they can still be found and be completely removed and it's effect from the trial. Besides, with their placement being based on random chance makes them even less viable. As a killer you need as much control of the environment as possible, sadly so many things are based on random chance, where some of those are affectable by offerings, which I think isn't all that great, especially due to the fact that as a killer you only have one offering but the survivors have four with which they can affect much more.What I suggested would most certainly improve the hexplay to a point where it could be considered viable.
-
@xxaggieboyxx said:
@Incarnate yeah the hair mostly noticeable on backwater swamp because of all the fog.as cool as all of this sounds its the sad truth that none of this would ever happen. the devs simply dont care enough or they dont have the funds to do something this huge. even if they did, matchmaking would take longer and then people would complain about that. i would be happy if they at least made your loadout(perks items and add ons) lock in before you found a match then took that into matchmaking. although i dont doubt claudette is invisible sometimes i see claudettes in corners all the time. but of course i dont know how many times i missed them because well, they dont tell me i missed them. i dont play claudette so i wouldnt know first hand how good the clothing is.
the perks and items for matchmaking seems in the realm of possibility but still unlikely. would be cool, make things more fair
but cosmetics? would never happen. even if they had the money it would probably never happen
Interestingly enough though, its seen with smaller indie studios with even smaller budgets to make even more elaborate things than what I suggested, and even better.
In regards to Claudette, I'd wager that you've probably missed her many more times than you give her credit for, including others who've been in darker clothes. Dark clothing is a great advantage, and combine it with dark moonlight, thick fog or just very dark shadows, then you can become almost invisible. One of the only things that would would be a dead give away to your location is if you suddenly became highlighted. Honestly, clothing should affect matchmaking.
I don't think matchmaking necessarily would have to take that much longer, because as I did write, they could have all the various values be combined into one rating, where this rating would be the one used when matchmaking, and they could even do it for SWF, so that if a group of SWF players each had the highest possible rating, they'd at least be from a system and balance perspective be attempted to matchmaked against a killer of a combined rating to match. Honestly I think they could do this more easily than you think, instead of pumping out dlc's.
I think they should the very least have perks, items and clothing affect matchmaking. The sad part is, even if they could afford it, they wouldn't do it, simply because they don't care enough of about game balance, because they have admitted on a devstream that addons, perks, equipment and their respective amounts and tiers affect game balance hugely, and this was well over a year ago, so considering they've acknowledged that it's something that affect the game balance hugely and they haven't done anything about it, just shows they don't care enough about it to fix it. Because if they did care but just didn't know how, they could easily have looked to the community's suggestions - like this one - yes this one have been posted before, along with others that put emphasis on fixing gamebalance and matchmaking, they could also easily have made the community draft up suggestions on how to fix it, and from those maybe even create something better. So I think it's fair to say, that if they cared enough, they would've fixed it by now.
-
So any dev who'd like to say anything in regards to the original post? Maybe @not_Queen who was already tagged early on? ..or are the devs just going to remain silent on this one as well?
-
@xxaggieboyxx said:
Another thing. Playing Claudette does have a drawback. You can see her hair floating through the fog across the map XDI haven't seen that before though, but I'm pretty sure if that's occuring that it's not intentional. It's a different batter if it's the brightest moolight and thin fog, but then most are easier to see anyways.
I find it odd that they haven't considered those things I've mentioned to be important for gamebalance in regards to matchmaking, especially when considering that they themselves have admitted on a devstream that addons, equipment and perks affect gameplay balance hugely. Considering that they have admitted this, then they should know when they look at the design of the game that there are serious areas they need to improve on with respects to gamebalance, and considering they haven't done that in my opinion says something about how much they don't really care enough for gamebalance, because otherwise they would've done something to fix it already. I know the perk amount and perk tier differences between opposing players have been brought up and discussed before, and devstream#59 was a long time ago, at least a year ago.
If they want this game to make it to the e-sports arena, then then they really need to focus a lot more these kinds of things, remove alot of RNG elements that are bad for gameplay balance and make it a lot more skill based.
-
@JammyJewels said:
Hm... I don't know. It's not easy to think about what how to create these characters classed based. I'd of suggested something like Identity V's method of having each character be good at something, bad at another, whilst also bringing in an item unique to them. But if anyone became like the Jock character in Identity V then all of the OchiDo wannabes would choose that character.I don't think it would be hard to create the class perks, because they're litterally already to some degree insinuated by the characters perks and backstory, but also by various game mechanics, like healing, repairing, sabotaging, running, cleansing, buffing other teammates, etc.
As healing is a mechanic in the game, that pretty much suggests a healer/medic class perk, you could say the self-care perk sort of is that and then not, because it increases efficiency of medkits and allows you to heal yourself at reduced efficiency, where having more healing mechanics benefits added would've made it more so a healer/medic class perk.
An interesting thing to consider which could make the medic / healer class perk very dangours not to bring, If it was changed so survivors couldn't heal each others without a med-kit, but could still help other survivors back up on their feet - if it was it could look something like this:
** Example
Medic / Healer - Class Perk
Benefits: Unlocks the ability to heal others without a med-kit at 50 % the normal healing speed.
Increases the efficiency of Med-kits by 10/15/20
Reduced Healing Skill Check difficulties: 10%/15%/20%
Increased Healing Skill Check Probality: 5%/10%/15%
Med-kit consumption rates are decreased by 20%/40%/50%Note: If survivors can still heal each other without a med-kit, then increase the healing speed to 75% of normal healing speed.
Botany Knowledge could still be taken as a support perk, it would just make the medic / healer super efficient with med-kits, which may not even be necessary and if so it would just be a waste to take, but good for other non-class healers.
The above should give a good indication of how I'm thinking the class perk could be like.
-
@powerbats said:
@Incarnate said:
Not sure if that is the same account, but if it was that asian being spamposted, then that was dealt with as I contacted a moderator directly to deal with it.But you're right, if you get blocked for reporting posts, then they need to solve it.
That was, it's the same person and they just make new accounts. Yes it was from reporting the spam poster which the blocker had been loosened according to @Peanits It's probably just a system bug.
Let's hope so then, and that they get it fixed ASAP.
-
Not sure if that is the same account, but if it was that asian being spamposted, then that was dealt with as I contacted a moderator directly to deal with it.
But you're right, if you get blocked for reporting posts, then they need to solve it.
-
Just throwing my cents in here.
Yes, as Peanits said, it is moderated, but they don't read every post or thread here, in fact as far as I know, they only gets a heads up when someone FLAGS a post. They might get a heads up if certain words are used, not sure on that, I'm sure @Peanits can enlighten us on that. I'm sure they'd moderate a post that was in violation if they stumpled upon it while reading peoples post, but simply put, we have to help them, otherwise it's impossible for so few people to have eyes on every post created it, there are so many post being created.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
Except half of what you list there is fair play.Body Blocking, Camping, Tunneling, and Looping - all part of the game.
Body Blocking, depends who is body blocking who and to what extent!
..like say a survivor who keeps on body blocking another survivor - certainly not fair play.Tunnelling, even though it's a result of the game mechanics, I wouldn't say necesarily that it would be fair play, I would say it isn't fair play, but then again it's against the rules of the game either, but it can be toxic to the gameplay, and overall - the community.
Looping is part of the game, and can't be considered unfair. The only thing is when infinites are used.
-
@Jack11803 said:
@Master said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Master said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Master said:
@Jack11803 said:
I was against a leatherface on Léry’s. I caused him to tantrum at a wall, he inched close enough to my pallet that I’d i dropped it he’d get stunned. So I drop it, he gets sucked to the center for the animation, except it delays, his hitbox stays active; and I’m downed through the already dropped pallet. I’m sorry but that’s bullshit that shouldn’t exist.You are describing lagg, yes P2P is a problem, but that wont change anytime soon
It was 50ms. Even tested it later in kyf as I have 2 ps4’s. (That means literally 0 ping, perfect connection.) still happened.
Even if both PS4s are in the same room, the game runs over the internet, i.e. you have indeed a ping around 50 or sth
I manage to drop pallets fine, unless the killer laggs.... then I get hit through pallets regularly.
But no need to worry, apperently the devs gonna apply easy mode next patch to looping, I wonder how that will do to the game
You do know its like impossible to lag a LAN party right?
As I said, you are not playing in your LAN network, but over the internet. That means that the information is sent to the local ISP which redirects it to yourself again. I know it sounds stupid, but thats how it works.
But of course, playing with yourself you will always have a very good ping (assuming you have proper connection)
Except what I’m describing can’t be lag. Lag would mean he takes actions I can’t see, and they occur after my action. Visibly from the killers view, tantrum activated, they were to far away, but whenever a pallet stun happened it triggered a down.
It could be lag, but it could also be a bug, and it could be something nonintentional in the game's design. In my experience, just standing too close to the pallets collision/hitbox is enough for you to take the hit, so something of the killer character's collider/hitbox is within the pallets Collider/hitbox, the killer will take the hit without necessarily seeming as if he/she should.
... and you can quite easily test if it's lag or not through KYF. Because testing this where the killer is standing still but close enough, will prove if it's lag or not - if the killer takes the hit, then it's not lag, but it's gamedesign. I've had that happen to me as killer plenty of times while standing still and not seeming to be close enough to take the hit and yet I get sucked in and take the hit. Even tried this as the Hag several times, placed a trap on a pallet location, teleport to it, it gets dropped, but it doesn't smash, trapping her inside of the pallet, with no way to interact with it. -
@Baphomett said:
On the other hand, you really can't blame the killer if the surv that unhooked hides and the wounded one runs around in the open just begging to be downed. Most of the time when I'm accused of tunelling, I was just c9nsistently going after the first survivor I saw, and the "tunnelled" surv was just terrible at hiding.Well. Tunnelling happens, both intentional and unintentional. However, with that being said though, I have to agree on that you can't blame the killer for doing his/her job, especially not when you become the obvious choice.
Let me put it this way:
A killer is supposed to kill the survivors without mercy, fairness or honor, the killer is supposed to kill in whatever way the killer sees fit. So you can't blame the killer for doing his/her job. Nor should a surivor expect that the killer will show you mercy and be fair, just because the survivor were just rescued from a hook or the fact that putting the survivor on the hook the third will sacrifice the survivor. Nor should the survivor expect to be given the hatch or be allowed to escape without intervention...and then there is the situation of the survivor player quitting/dc'ing during the match while the survivor team is behind on generators. You can't blame the killer for doing his job effeciently in this situation either, but I will say this though, it would be good sportsmanship to actually play accordingly to the situation as a killer, so if they survivors are clearly behind on generators and have one or two other players quit/dc during the match, it would be good sportsmanship to play more fairly, play less aggressively, etc. Though, I think the devs should solve this rather than put that responsibility on the killer player, when the odds skewed in favor of the killer because of survivor quit/dc. They could solve this in a number of ways, like lowering the requirement for the exit to be unlocked, it is a 4v1 game after all, so if just one player quits/dc the rest of the survivor team is at a disadvantage, and even more so if another one quits/dc, and so.
-
What you're saying doesn't effectively stop tunnelling - a survivor player can't directly stop a killer from tunnelling a survivor, just through the their own actions - why? Because for it to be tunnelling, it doesn't require the killer to be successful in killing the survivor through tunnelling - the fact that the killer repeatedly goes after the same survivor player, is tunnelling - no amount of actions by the survivor player's is going to change that.
Can you stop a killer player from keeping on tunnelling you as a survivor? Possibly, but only by making the killer realize that he/she is wasting too much time specifically on you.
Does that stop the tunnelling from happening all together? No, if a killer tunnels one survivor but realize he/she is wasting too much time on you specifically, then the killer will just switch target and tunnel that one.
So, what if all players are good enough to keep evading, wouldn't that stop tunnelling? One would possibly think so, but eventually the killer will very likely consider tunnelling just to ensure to get at least one kill or more if possible.
Is it the survivors fault if they get tunnelled? Certainly not. You can't blame a killer's choice to tunnel the players, when it's actually an effective strategy, assuming you're not wasting too much time as a killer to down the survivor in question that is being tunnelled - Tunnelling is an effective strategy to ensure kills.
In regards to using the camera more as a survivor is just a good advice, that is one of their main benefits as a survivor, but you can't specifically use it to stop tunnelling from happening if it happens. Only your skill in escaping the killer will aid you in making the killer possibly choose someone else to tunnel, and saving you for last.
-
@M2Fream said:
I think if you are playing pig, one box should spawn in the basement. That would be a good start to some buffs for her. Also make territorial imperitive good for her.Well, in my opinion, I don't think her design is very good, and it encourages tunnelling even though it may not be the best option, that is what a lot tend to do, where survivors with the RBT are already at a massive disadvantage, both from from being injured, but also by being forced to go to KNOWN locations, not to mention that they can outright kill the character which I think is very broken, considering others need to use addons, hexes or even moris to be able to do. The dead give aways I don't think is a good thing, for any killer, and they should do what they can do minimize them, so with Pig's puzzleboxes, putting one in the basement would be a start, and removing those above ground would also be good in my opinion, where the next would only become revealed, IF the RNG fails the survivor, this location SHOULD NOT be revealed to the killer.
The modified Territorial Imperative would be good for her crouching stalker ability especially, because as a stalker that knows where her target is will make it so much easier to ambush the survivors.
-
In my opinion, it's not just the perks that "gets old", but the whole objective gameplay is quite repetitive, where no amount of changing perks will change that. Thats true with most games, if you play a game long enough, it will eventually become uninteresting and boring, even though you might think the game is awesome and so on. In my opinion, they need to bring something new and fresh to the game, like a new game mode or expand on the existing game mode's main objectives - perhaps they could add variations, so like for instance, instead of having to repair gens, they would have to work together to assemble a key, where this key once assembled would open the exit, or it could be a map they needed to assemble where reading it would reveal the exit locations physically, where those exits weren't the same.
It would also be good if they would add more meta perks, and actually revise the gameplay beta, like what some of us have been suggesting.
-
@JammyJewels said:
Well, another idea could be to have the perks do more for the characters they came from. Whether that be increasing the numbers of it or giving it an additional effect.They would already do more for the characters if they were added those unique characteristics, as they would already have improved strengths in that regard. However, if they' didn't get those passively from being the character, but instead got it from a perk, then it could be attributed to being the equivalent of a personality perk.
I suggest if going the route with a personality perk, I think it should be considered to implementing a fifth perk slot, making it a primary and mandatory slot, which should only be able to be changed if for instance level 50 had been reached with the character at least once, or if the mode is KYF where everything is unlocked.
5 perks are to be selected:
- Personality Perk - Identity Function, like Dwight Fairfield. (adding something similar to the character like what you wrote).
- Class Perk - Primary Function, like healer - ie. self-care
- Character specific perk.
- Support/utility perk.
- Free choice perk.
An example of the above:
Personality Perk: Dwight Fairfield
Class Perk: Leader
Character Specific Perk: Bond
Support/Utility Perk: Sprint Burst
Free Choice: Premonition (can be any other non-selected unlocked perk)Summary of the above example:
The character in question would get all characteristic values and qualities from the personality perk, in this case example - see second post in this thread for specific values.
The character would get all the benefits of the selected perks, which in this case would be Leader, Bond, Sprint Burst and PremonitionPlease note: This is example isn't intended to necessarily be a good build.
An added bonus of the above is that it makes the player having to actually level the character before the personality perk can be change on the character, which would ensure some predictability. Furthermore, personality perks should only be unlocked for other characters when you have leveled the character at least once to level 50.
The personality and class perk could be combined, which would make it represent the character and its intended class a lot more, and it would also serve to give the class some inherent drawbacks as well as advantages.
-
@JammyJewels said:
@Master said:
@JammyJewels said:
@Incarnate said:
@JammyJewels said:
@Incarnate said:
...and people who're engaged in this thread.. The post @JammyJewels have posted have nothing to do with my suggestion despite certain few similarities, I'd appreciate if you'd stay on the topic I put forth....I hijacked your thread? My suggestion was under the subject of making survivors less universal. A.K.A the title of your thread. If I've hijacked it in any way it's due to more people responding to the idea I put forth in response to the opening post rather than people addressing your idea. It's an open forum. We needn't respond specifically to what you've put forth and people can always just comment their own alterations or ideas to the thread's title: "Make Killers more Universal or making Survivors less universal". Not to mention the fear element being brought back. So, no, I didn't hijack your thread. I'm staying on topic and talking about the subject of the title. Not about your specifications of balance or ideas.
Alright, I see your point, I just didn't realize it because what you're suggested, to me at the time it didn't make them seem less universal, because most of what you would be changing with those value changes, is affecting their individual performance and add a bit of predictability, but doesn't actually make them less universal, as they can still use the all the best perks in the game in any way they want, they can still equip and use any item they want (provided they have it). I do like adding the strength, weaknesses and uniqueness, as they to me have seemed like they were intended to be for a certain style of play, fitting a specific type of class if you will. Where the backstory and theme of their perks suggests what they would be good at and possible also not so good at. My angle though were to make the perks more class based, and that way affect the survivors as a whole rather than individually as a character. But it certainly could compliment each other well.
I actually think that if their perk slots were changed somewhat like this.
One class perk slot.
One Character specific perk.
One support/utility perk.
One free choice perk.
...or similar..and then the character strengths, weaknesses and unique quality were also added.
Obviously Class perks should be defined, and there are already some obvious classes I think that would spring to mind, like healer, leader, saboteur/trapper, scout, etc.But with the above I think it could really make them less universal, much more class based and predictable.
Well, another idea could be to have the perks do more for the characters they came from. Whether that be increasing the numbers of it or giving it an additional effect.
@Master said:
@JammyJewels said:
I've suggested something along these lines before. As I presume many others have as well. I chose Claudette as my main because her description seemed to insinuate that she was a healing based character. If each character had unique stats these are what I'd give them.Dwight Fairfield:
- 10% Repair speed increase
- 5% Healing Speed increase when healing others
- 9% Vault Speed Decrease
- 5% Additional generator regression when failing a skill check
- 10% Increased vocal range.
- UNIQUE: Dwight's breathing noises are reduced for each survivor that is remaining in the trial. When all alone anxiety overwhelms him, and he now whimpers in fear.
He is described in a way that describes a playstyle around being around a team. He is weakened when his team is gone but is a strong aid to the team he has alive.
Claudette Morel:
- 20% Healing speed increase
- Reduced duration of scratch mark visiblity
- 5% Healing Progression when hitting a Great skill check.
- 5% Repair speed decrease
- 9% Vault Speed Decrease
- 10% Additional healing regression when failing a skill check
- UNIQUE: Claudette is able to wake up sleeping survivors while healing them with a Great Skill Check, which will cause Claudette to give the healed survivor a shot of adrenaline. Great Skill Checks will alternatively instantly bring a dying survivor into the injured state. Hitting a Great skill check on an injured survivor will not instantly bring them into the healthy state.
Meg Thomas:
- 9% Sprinting speed increase
- Reduced duration of scratch mark visibility
- 9% Vault speed increase
- 15% Repair speed decrease
- 10% Healing speed decrease when healing self.
- UNIQUE: Meg recovers from Exhaustion whilst sprinting, but the recovery speed of exhaustion whilst sprinting is reduced by 100%. A 40 second Exhaustion timer would become an 80 second timer if sprinting for the entirety of the recovery period.
Jake Park:
- 20% Sabotage Speed increase
- 10% Repair Speed increase.
- 10% Healing speed decrease
- 20% Sabotage regression when failing a skill check
UNIQUE: Jake has a natural affinity to using tools. Efficiency when using Toolboxes is increased naturally but when failing a skill check charges from the Toolbox are removed instead of generator/hook sabotage progression.
These are just for the base survivors. I have an idea for Nea to make her more of a Stealth character, Feng Min as a solo survivor (to perhaps fit in with her Teachable, I forgot the name of it) but I would like to see the survivors be more than just skins. But implementation of any feature like this would take time, and the team will need to dedicate a lot of their time to feedback over balance for the new killer and survivor, future chapters, etc.
You need to add some unique debuffs or we end up buffing survivors again
Buffing survivors isn't a bad thing, unless it makes them overpowered. If we buff survivors and give them an undoubted advantage over the killer we buff the killer to compensate. Buffs are much more fun than nerfs.
They are already overpowered, so buffing them is indeed a bad thing.
And no, its not the solution to only buff and never nerf
If you continuously nerf something you not only remove the power of it but you also make it less fun to use. If you buffed perks instead of nerfing the most powerful ones then you'd end up with a larger variety of perks without removing the values of the ones most commonly picked.
Yes, if something gets nerfed to the point where there is this little or no benefits of using it, then it's purpose to exist is more or less defeated. For anything to be viable it has to get benefits that outweigh its drawbacks.
-
@Justicar said:
I think Monstrous Shrine would be fine as is if the new numbers were just given a brief buff. With Territorial Imperative, it would also be fine if the top tier of the perk simply had no range requirement.Monstrous Shrine isn't very good on it's own, it's very circumstancial, to better make use of it, you have to run two other perks, Iron Grip and Agitation, and even then you're not ensured to fully be able to make efficient use of it. Hence why I suggest improving it, with something that synergizes well with it. The tier rating the game DbD Game Tutors have set up, ranges from A to F, where is the worst of the worst and A, the equivalent of a must have - Monstrous Shrine got an F - just tweaking numbers wouldn't improve it much, as it's not the values of it that make it a bad perk, it's the fact that it's very situational and you have to run two other perks to be able to actually use it more efficiently.
If you don't think the aura revealing part from Territorial Imperative on Monstrous Shrine is a good fit, what other function would you suggest to put on it?
You can find the reference list here, should you be curious: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F-D0qqtlyDv7IB0GDBRfAAXBVSdXMXoWGs5uOmxguwc/edit#gid=1037932605
Territorial Imperative is rated a D, it's recommend not to use it as is, so clearly the perk could use improvements, and tweaking numbers just isn't enough, again because it's too situational.
The reason Territorial Imperative is suggested to be changed this way, is to work around the same concept, but expanding upon it, because it shouldn't still have the same ability as what would be added to Monstrous Shrine. Another good reason why this would be a good solution to change them into what I suggested, it would be them synergize exceptionally well, and would be great perks on their own. Though when thinking about it, there should be a cooldown timer on after revealing the survivors outside of the territory, otherwise it would get too strong.
Consider some of the effects if one were running the modified version of Monstrous Shrine:
- killer would get notified if a survivor went into the basement, basically letting the killer know there is fresh meat down there to be put on to the hook.
- because the killer would get notified, the killer would stand a better chance at actually utilizing the perk passive improvement to the basement hooks.
Consider some of the effects if one were running the modified version of Territorial Imperative.
- the killer would always know the exact location of the survivors when in its own territory, provided the killer is within the territory or relatively close to edge of the territory.
- the killers territory wouldn't just be the basement and the territory above, but also a considerable area above the basement would count as the territory, making it impossible to hide from the killer while it's in its territory. This also includes anyone just passing through.
- killer would be able to go his/her territory, to get an idea where the survivors are
Consider some of the effects, if one were running both of the suggested versions of Monstrous Shrine and Territorial Imperative.
- all of the above listed.
- if the killer was only running the modified territorial imperative, then the killer wouldn't be able to make use of it, unless the killer was relatively close to the territory or within, so the killer wouldn't know if some one was in the territory if the killer was further way, this also means the killer wouldn't know if one went into the basement, but with Monstrous Shrine he/she would at least then know if a survivor went to the basement that someone was on its territory.
Personally, I think this would really improve the gameplay when using these and making them a lot more viable, on their own.
-
@jeridan said:
They can't even code randomized totem and pallet placement.Though to be fair, there are a lot of variables to account for, plus having it completely random would not be good, as it could result in some locations that would be inaccessible to both killer and survivor, not only that but some locations would be extremely bad for the killer, like when in obvious clear view. Granted, it could be better, but completely random totem and pallet placement wouldn't be good, in fact it would be alot worse than it currently is.
But back to the topic, do you think the basement is too small, should it be expanded?
-
@JammyJewels said:
@Incarnate said:
...and people who're engaged in this thread.. The post @JammyJewels have posted have nothing to do with my suggestion despite certain few similarities, I'd appreciate if you'd stay on the topic I put forth....I hijacked your thread? My suggestion was under the subject of making survivors less universal. A.K.A the title of your thread. If I've hijacked it in any way it's due to more people responding to the idea I put forth in response to the opening post rather than people addressing your idea. It's an open forum. We needn't respond specifically to what you've put forth and people can always just comment their own alterations or ideas to the thread's title: "Make Killers more Universal or making Survivors less universal". Not to mention the fear element being brought back. So, no, I didn't hijack your thread. I'm staying on topic and talking about the subject of the title. Not about your specifications of balance or ideas.
Alright, I see your point, I just didn't realize it because what you're suggested, to me at the time it didn't make them seem less universal, because most of what you would be changing with those value changes, is affecting their individual performance and add a bit of predictability, but doesn't actually make them less universal, as they can still use the all the best perks in the game in any way they want, they can still equip and use any item they want (provided they have it). I do like adding the strength, weaknesses and uniqueness, as they to me have seemed like they were intended to be for a certain style of play, fitting a specific type of class if you will. Where the backstory and theme of their perks suggests what they would be good at and possible also not so good at. My angle though were to make the perks more class based, and that way affect the survivors as a whole rather than individually as a character. But it certainly could compliment each other well.
I actually think that if their perk slots were changed somewhat like this.
One class perk slot.
One Character specific perk.
One support/utility perk.
One free choice perk.
...or similar..and then the character strengths, weaknesses and unique quality were also added.
Obviously Class perks should be defined, and there are already some obvious classes I think that would spring to mind, like healer, leader, saboteur/trapper, scout, etc.But with the above I think it could really make them less universal, much more class based and predictable.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@Incarnate said:
@Wolf74 said:
Why should they NOT collide?
It's only realistic that they can't just run through each other.
Just to make it easier for survivor, cause they don't have to use their brain?The problem is that it creates a problem where survivors can trap other survivors. It's even seen where the survivors have been working with the killer where the survivors trap in a fellow survivor, to then lead the killer to the trapped survivor. Which they basically do to troll/bully the other trapped survivor player. Though with that said, removing collision between survivors would cause various problem. And it isn't as easy to fix as it might seem, as implemented other features that would help the "sandbagged" survivor could just as easily be abused.
That's a problem about the player themselves, not the gamemechanics.
Complain about the person doing this, but do not try to fix it by changing the mehcanics, what would lead to a lot of other issues.
You try to fix an issue that is created by survivorplayer by creating a serious issue for killer.Thats what I said, it creates more problems by trying to fix this issue, because it's not as easy to fix as it might seem.
-
...and people who're engaged in this thread.. The post @JammyJewels have posted have nothing to do with my suggestion despite certain few similarities, I'd appreciate if you'd stay on the topic I put forth.
-
@JammyJewels - You know that you actually hijacked my thread, right? It would've been good to post it in it's own thread and then making your comments here, but instead of hijacking the thread with your suggestion, you could mention you have a similar suggestion and then you would give people an option to take a look at your suggestion by providing a link - if they were interested.
-
@245_Trioxin said:
@Incarnate said:
Not targeted and persistent? When it's being done by survivors against the killer, then there is a target, and if they keep on doing it, then it becomes persistent. I'm not watering the definitions down, they are what they are. In general there are a lot of actions that are or can be considered cyberbullying and / or trolling, these actions can be of varying degrees - the word doesn't lose power just because that is added. By your logic, that would be same as saying the word "criminal" loses all meaning when it's said that there are various types and severity of crimes. Nothing is taken away from any victims, there are many different types and severities of cyberbullying, the victims of any cyberbullying action isn't any less a victim. What I am saying though that is that teabagging can be consider one of the cyberbullying actions that can be done towards others, where the severity (with limits) depends on how the victim perceives and interprets the action.
How does that make me sensitive just because I acknowledge the fact that it is such, I haven't said anything in regards to how I react if people subject me to that, because it doesn't get to me, but I know it gets to others.
..and it seems you don't really acknowledge that.DbD not being competitive, well I disagree, it may not be par with certain other games, but it certainly is a competitive game, it's 4v1 game where you're competing to beat the other player(s) - it's competitive! Granted it's not an e-sport game (yet) - and you can't say those rules don't apply here, because who makes you the judge of that?
Does the survivor know the name of the killer before or during the match? No, they don't. So it is not targeted and persistent. The survivor is not teabagging you, they are teabagging the killer, which is just an avatar. They are not lobby hopping in order to find you and teabag you. They are not finding you on Facebook and sending gifs of them teabagging. They are getting a rise out of the nameless person controlling the killer. It is not targeted, not persistent, and not harassment.
This is what I mean by you being overly sensitive. You are assuming a personal attack when the person on the other end is not teabagging you. They are teabagging an avatar, whether that is a Nurse, Hillbilly, etc. They don't even know your name until the post-match screen. In addition, your statement about it being derogatory and "beyond human decency" shows exactly the level of sensitivity I'm talking about. Claiming it is "beyond human decency" is taking on a stance of authoritarian moralism and equating it to terrorism, #########, or murder.
I never said it doesn't get to people. Hell, it's gotten a rise out of me before. I'm not making that argument. I stated that it is obnoxious and immature.
See, here's the problem with this debate. I am not defending it on any level. I don't do it, and if you do it to me, you're getting hooked. What I am doing is making the argument that it is not trolling, per the definition, and it is not cyberbullying because (though it's really annoying) it is not targeted, persistent, and overtly malicious.
Regarding DbD not being competitive, it cannot be. There is way too much RNG that happens in the game for it to be competitive on any level. The generation of the map alone is enough to create an imbalance that will keep it firmly out of any e-sport. Never mind the other randomness of the game, as a whole.
They don't need to know the name of the killer before or during the match to target you, it doesn't have to be targeting you through your real or online identity, for it to be considered targeted - they're targeting the one in control of "the avatar", which is sufficient to consider it as targeted. And if they keep on doing it, then it's persistent, doesn't have to carry on to another match. They may not have have the name on the individual they're targeting and harassing, but it doesn't change their behaviour, and their intention behind the behaviour certainly also counts in regards to determining if it's trolling and/or cyberbullying to some extent.
I'm not assuming it's a personal attack, but it's not the killer they're trying to harass, it's the player behind it, and by extension, that means an attack on the player and NOT the avatar. So not it's not me who am being overly sensitive, I just acknowledge it for what it is, and that other folks have a problem with it, and the fact it's player they're trying to target, even when they're limited by the game's design to do this fully. Teabagging is beyond human decency if you go by what teabaggin is defined as when it's non-consensual, when carried out non-consensually in real life it actually, in some jurisdictions, is legally considered sexual assault or sexual battery.
So you're saying it's not trolling by definition, well that certainly depends where you read the definition and how you interpret it... A troll is a person who upsets people on the Internet, who distract and sows discord with the intent of provoking it's targets into displaying emotional responses. I would definitely say that those who're trying target the player through teabagging behaviour certainly has the intent to upset, provoke and sow discord in an attempt to trigger an emotional reaction. On the note of cyberbullying, "Cyberbullying or cyberharassment is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic means." Harassment, "Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive." - it is to an extent cyberbullying due to it being a form of harassment, as it can be persistent, which it usually is. Furthermore, trolling is more vaguely defined than actually is, and encompasses a lot more than how it is defined - its very abstract, trolling can be an act of harassment.
DbD is competitive, granted it's not an e-sport, but the doesn't mean it's any less competitive. It's very nature is competitive, the versus part also implies competition, the player rank system also encourages competitiveness. It's a competitive game, despite it's RNG elements and imbalances. Just because it's not an e-sport game doesn't mean it's not a competitive game.
GameSpot even said "Dead by Daylight executes the concept of a competitive horror game.
-
@JammyJewels - You might actually like the character system I wrote down in this suggestion: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/15373/suggestion-improving-matchmaking-through-a-character-clothing-gear-perk-addons-etc
..as the system there actually makes it possibe to better define what each character should be good at and how it would affect gameplay.
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
I like your killer idea it would bring even more variety to the killers.But then each killer would have to have different modifiers .
For example Trapper has a bigger terror radius for example.
Yes, variety, depth and more tension, as the survivors wouldn't know exactly what they were dealing with, especially if they add more power variations, including interchangable power variations during the the trial.
I think another aspect that would be good to consider would be to be able to change the preset values based on what the killers normally would excel at, for instance a chase would be slightly faster where one who excels at pressure would have more terror radius, and so on. Obviously this should also affect what powers could be selected, so it doesn't break the game balance.
The preset values obviously have some attributes they affect, like speed, terror radius, melee miss recovery rate and some others obviously, I don't know them all.
-
@JammyJewels said:
@Orion said:
@JammyJewels I recommend you familiarize yourself with the current numbers so you realize how ridiculously OP your suggestion is.The 9% increase in sprinting speed for Meg is the same value as one of the end-game focused perks gives. The 9% Vault speed increase is the same as Spine Chill, or near enough to it if I remember correctly. I'm just trying to pitch forth an idea and would happily see people make adjustments to those numbers. But these are focused on descriptions and the vibes I got from them.
Oh, you were replying to the other poster in my thread.
-
@White_Owl said:
Unfortunately the sound design is deeply tied with the gameplay, that's why there's no way to personalize settings. If you problem is caused by screams you can use Calm Spirit as survivor, but otherwise I don't see what else it could be done. Even if it's just disabling screams, unless other people with your same problem speak out they won't make changes that could potentially have repercussions just for one person.How exactly would calm spirit affect the screams produced by getting hooked? As far as I know they don't, and even if they did, they would force anyone who have a need to disable the screams, to run that perk.
It's easier to do something about this that you think, if they don't provide a fix for it, then it's not because they can't it's because don't want to. The screams being deeply tied to some part of the gameplay, that would have to be pointed out more specifically what that is it affects.
@White_Owl - Do you actually know how many people who're playing this game? In the last 30 days, on average aproximately 20k players, and peak is 36k+. But that doesn't specifically reflect which of those who're playing it that has a medical condition/issue that is affected and possibly worsened by playing the game. It would be a lot better to look at the amount of copies sold, I don't know the actual current number, but in mid 2017 the amount of copies sold was 1 mil.+ Now, then consider how many of those actually come to forums and actively engage in the threads, I don't know the specific member count or active member count for that matter, but say 10k players come to the forums, where maybe it's only a few of those with the actual medical issues who come to forum but possibly not the forum where the post in question that they need to respond to is located, where the rest just keep coping while playing or stop all together at some point. Furthermore, these players might not even see this specific thread - See my point? Just because I'm the only one to speak up, that doesn't mean that there couldn't be many others who're experiencing the same issue with the game, and also it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed just because a few speak up. As core part of the gameplay, it's pretty bad to design it so that you will get screamed in your ear with no way of avoiding it. Consider how many play the game with headphones on these days, not to mention HD and high fidelity one's, which doesn't make it any better, in fact they just make it worse. But irregardless of the quality of the headphones, where are headphones placed? On your head around your ears, which places the speakers right besides your ears, this makes the screams come right next to your ears - do you know the equivalent of that? One standing beside you with their mouth up close to your ears and screaming! Now, screams from further away can be a problem for some, but it's less of a problem, but here you have no way to avoid it, if you're the being hooked or the one hooking the survivor.
To note, some of the game owners, who have stopped playing it, may have stopped playing it for medical reasons without realizing that it possibly could be changed so it they could've continued playing, if they spoke up. Furthermore, you can't only be considering those who're currently playing it and speaking up about the problem, you also have to look at those who have stopped playing due to this reason, and then there are also the pontential players, especially those who've been looking at gameplay videos, etc. and found it would be a medical issue for them to play, and then not. Also, designing a game in such a way that it can cause medical issues or be an issue for those with a medical problem, is certainly not a good thing, and moreover, refusing to to actually provide a workaround when the workaround would be more a detriment to gameplay advantage than the other way, is not good either.
@not_Queen - @ProfoundEnding specifically asked if you could chime in on the original post's subject - do you have anything you can say in that regard?
-
@Orion said:
@JammyJewels I recommend you familiarize yourself with the current numbers so you realize how ridiculously OP your suggestion is.What numbers are you refering to?
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Incarnate said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Incarnate said:
Teabagging in gaming can be considered an attempt to humiliate, harass, provoke or bully another person, hence trolling and cyberbullying. Furthermore, the action is demeaning, derogatory and beyond human decency as it's based on the sexual act to teabag. There is a reason why it has led to high ranking players in other games to be temporarily banned for the action. Other game developers perceive it as an act of trolling, when for instance you have achievements with the naming Trolling and the act that nets you the achievement is teabagging someone. Furthermore, there are many different actions of varying degree that is considered cyberbullying.Its basically the online "middle finger" .
That is your interpretation of it! I disagree, it's a lot more than that. To you that would be the equivalent of the online "middle finger", where others certainly might see it a lot differently. There is a reason why people are are upset about it. If it was just the equivalent of the online "middle finger" I'm sure people wouldn't have that many problems with it. People do have a problem with it, so it's obviously more than that.
I think that the middle finger is the most offensive act that you can perform that excludes words and violence. Its disrespecfull and rude.
But i respect your POV as you make fair points as well.If i see you in game as killer i'll give you hatch (or try to at least)
You know, the middle finger is, just a finger. Where teabagging is different as it also includes motion, it depicts something something sexually demeaning and derogatory.
When someone gives me the middle finger, I either ignore them or just look at the finger and then back at the individual, then give the individual a puzzled / confused look - and respond with, yes thats a finger! Then watch their reaction.
The point of the matter is, it's because it's been attributed a meaning, but in reality, it's just a finger, nothing more, and it doesn't depict anything else than a finger.
..good to know, though I probably won't need the hatch anyways
@245_Trioxin said:
@Incarnate said:
Teabagging in gaming can be considered an attempt to humiliate, harass, provoke or bully another person, hence trolling and cyberbullying. Furthermore, the action is demeaning, derogatory and beyond human decency as it's based on the sexual act to teabag. There is a reason why it has led to high ranking players in other games to be temporarily banned for the action. Other game developers perceive it as an act of trolling, when for instance you have achievements with the naming Trolling and the act that nets you the achievement is teabagging someone. Furthermore, there are many different actions of varying degree that is considered cyberbullying.It's not a targeted and persistent attack on a specific person, so it is not cyberbullying. Once again, please stop watering things down to suit your agenda/ideology. By adding "different actions of varying degrees" you make the word lose all power. It no longer has substance, and takes away from actual victims (because now anyone can claim they're a victim).
The only reason it could be considered trolling, again, is because of people like you who feel that they need to water down and change definitions. An insult is not trolling. Just because devs jokingly refer to it in an achievement does not make it a definition.
"Furthermore, the action is demeaning, derogatory and beyond human decency as it's based on the sexual act to teabag."
This statement is laughable. Do you see how overly sensitive you are being? It's just done to make you angry, that's all. And apparently it works like a charm.
"There is a reason why it has led to high ranking players in other games to be temporarily banned for the action."
In e-sports, yes, but not because it is cyberbullying. It would be considered unsportsmanlike conduct, just like in any other sport. But, seeing as this is not a competitive, e-sport, style game, and is way more casual, those rules don't apply here.
Not targeted and persistent? When it's being done by survivors against the killer, then there is a target, and if they keep on doing it, then it becomes persistent. I'm not watering the definitions down, they are what they are. In general there are a lot of actions that are or can be considered cyberbullying and / or trolling, these actions can be of varying degrees - the word doesn't lose power just because that is added. By your logic, that would be same as saying the word "criminal" loses all meaning when it's said that there are various types and severity of crimes. Nothing is taken away from any victims, there are many different types and severities of cyberbullying, the victims of any cyberbullying action isn't any less a victim. What I am saying though that is that teabagging can be consider one of the cyberbullying actions that can be done towards others, where the severity (with limits) depends on how the victim perceives and interprets the action.
How does that make me sensitive just because I acknowledge the fact that it is such, I haven't said anything in regards to how I react if people subject me to that, because it doesn't get to me, but I know it gets to others.
..and it seems you don't really acknowledge that.DbD not being competitive, well I disagree, it may not be par with certain other games, but it certainly is a competitive game, it's 4v1 game where you're competing to beat the other player(s) - it's competitive! Granted it's not an e-sport game (yet) - and you can't say those rules don't apply here, because who makes you the judge of that?
-
Personally, I'm not disoriented, I'm just in pain if I don't remove the headset.
What sounds from the nearby survivors exactly would they cover up?
Walking, running? The killer has eyes you know. Even if the sound design is intentional, it should still be possible to disable those sounds. -
@Orion said:
@Incarnate said:
@Orion said:
@Incarnate said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Incarnate said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
I think its simply because of tecnical issues that they can't have seperate sound sliders for gameplay. And the abuses of course.Technical issues? I know enough about code and game development to know that if they can't specifically isolate specific sounds, then it's because they have designed to their own detriment. Because disabling certain sounds, can be as simple as setting as not having the sound trigger at all.
How exactly can you abuse disabling character screams?
you could make it so that for example as killer you hear moans louder than intended or get the music to be super quiet you know that kind of thing.
In Dbd everything can be abused so the devs need to be super carefull with that .
I wish that they implement a "fade to black flashlight screen" as i get eye pain when i see too much white in my screen multiple times.
How can you make a scream louder, IF it's DISABLED?
I know you could abuse that kind of thing, IF, and only if you could adjust the those specific sounds.
But I'm litterally talking about completely disabling them, thats quite different - How exactly could you get an unfair advantage from DISABLING the character screams?Because the character screams are intended to cover up other sounds. Every bit of the sound design is intentional, including the fact that you can't lower or disable any specific sounds.
..and what sounds would those be exactly that the screams are intended to cover up and why exactly are those needed to be covered by the screams?
Other Survivors around, for example. The point is for the sound to be disorienting for both Survivors and Killers.
But the scream doesn't disorient anyone, and certainly not other survivors who have 3rd person view.
..and how would it be disorienting to the killer? Covering up the sounds of nearby survivors, that would also be covered up other game sounds. -
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Incarnate said:
Teabagging in gaming can be considered an attempt to humiliate, harass, provoke or bully another person, hence trolling and cyberbullying. Furthermore, the action is demeaning, derogatory and beyond human decency as it's based on the sexual act to teabag. There is a reason why it has led to high ranking players in other games to be temporarily banned for the action. Other game developers perceive it as an act of trolling, when for instance you have achievements with the naming Trolling and the act that nets you the achievement is teabagging someone. Furthermore, there are many different actions of varying degree that is considered cyberbullying.Its basically the online "middle finger" .
That is your interpretation of it! I disagree, it's a lot more than that. To you that would be the equivalent of the online "middle finger", where others certainly might see it a lot differently. There is a reason why people are are upset about it. If it was just the equivalent of the online "middle finger" I'm sure people wouldn't have that many problems with it. People do have a problem with it, so it's obviously more than that.
-
@Orion said:
@Incarnate said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Incarnate said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
I think its simply because of tecnical issues that they can't have seperate sound sliders for gameplay. And the abuses of course.Technical issues? I know enough about code and game development to know that if they can't specifically isolate specific sounds, then it's because they have designed to their own detriment. Because disabling certain sounds, can be as simple as setting as not having the sound trigger at all.
How exactly can you abuse disabling character screams?
you could make it so that for example as killer you hear moans louder than intended or get the music to be super quiet you know that kind of thing.
In Dbd everything can be abused so the devs need to be super carefull with that .
I wish that they implement a "fade to black flashlight screen" as i get eye pain when i see too much white in my screen multiple times.
How can you make a scream louder, IF it's DISABLED?
I know you could abuse that kind of thing, IF, and only if you could adjust the those specific sounds.
But I'm litterally talking about completely disabling them, thats quite different - How exactly could you get an unfair advantage from DISABLING the character screams?Because the character screams are intended to cover up other sounds. Every bit of the sound design is intentional, including the fact that you can't lower or disable any specific sounds.
..and what sounds would those be exactly that the screams are intended to cover up and why exactly are those needed to be covered by the screams?
-
Teabagging in gaming can be considered an attempt to humiliate, harass, provoke or bully another person, hence trolling and cyberbullying. Furthermore, the action is demeaning, derogatory and beyond human decency as it's based on the sexual act to teabag. There is a reason why it has led to high ranking players in other games to be temporarily banned for the action. Other game developers perceive it as an act of trolling, when for instance you have achievements with the naming Trolling and the act that nets you the achievement is teabagging someone. Furthermore, there are many different actions of varying degree that is considered cyberbullying.
-
@Wolf74 said:
Why should they NOT collide?
It's only realistic that they can't just run through each other.
Just to make it easier for survivor, cause they don't have to use their brain?The problem is that it creates a problem where survivors can trap other survivors. It's even seen where the survivors have been working with the killer where the survivors trap in a fellow survivor, to then lead the killer to the trapped survivor. Which they basically do to troll/bully the other trapped survivor player. Though with that said, removing collision between survivors would cause various problems. And it isn't as easy to fix as it might seem, as implemented other features that would help the "sandbagged" survivor could just as easily be abused.
-
@MrChills said:
@Incarnate said:
@MrChills said:
@Incarnate said:
@MrChills said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@AdánAR said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@AdánAR said:
Jajajajajaja stop being a pussy, you deserved it. I always have tryhard killers, campers, tunnelers, rage quitters, who complains about looping, who complains about sabo hooks... I teabbaged them and will always do it. Just getgud and stop cry about it. This is a surv side game i mean #########?Jesus.....
Dude it's the true. Being Killer sucks and it's triggering af. I always play surv and sometimes killer for fun; some matches i get 4k, another ones any kills but i don't open a thread in the forum to cry and complain about toxic survivors. I just move on and play other match.
I know that. But the way you expressed yourself does not help. Just be a bit empathetic next time please.
I vote you as next mod. We need more compassion these forums.
What we also need is a bit more maturity, it's one of the reasons the community is so toxic in the first place - because there are so many very immature players, unfortunately. It would be nice if it was actually possible to make them understand what their behaviour does to other human beings.
The odd thing, T-bagging has actually been allowed by the devs, but apparently they don't realize that t-bagging is the equivalent of trolling or cyberbullying, which means that when they allow that behaviour they're indirectly saying "we condone trolling and cyberbullying".
well that's the internet bud. immature mates everywhere.
But actually condoning trolling behaviour and cyberbullying? Well, it certainly gives their company name a different meaning! They shouldn't tolerate this kind of behaviour, as it's downright toxic to the gameplay, playerbase and community.
I don't condone it yet I cannot control it. Not my game. up to devs.
I didn't say you condone it, but the devs have stated on a devstream that t-bagging is allowed, and thus they condone it. There is a big difference between condoning something and actually being against it but admitting they don't know how to deal with it. Setting the foot down so to speak, would be first step, then figure out a way to actually deal with the problem.
-
@MrChills said:
@Incarnate said:
@MrChills said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@AdánAR said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@AdánAR said:
Jajajajajaja stop being a pussy, you deserved it. I always have tryhard killers, campers, tunnelers, rage quitters, who complains about looping, who complains about sabo hooks... I teabbaged them and will always do it. Just getgud and stop cry about it. This is a surv side game i mean #########?Jesus.....
Dude it's the true. Being Killer sucks and it's triggering af. I always play surv and sometimes killer for fun; some matches i get 4k, another ones any kills but i don't open a thread in the forum to cry and complain about toxic survivors. I just move on and play other match.
I know that. But the way you expressed yourself does not help. Just be a bit empathetic next time please.
I vote you as next mod. We need more compassion these forums.
What we also need is a bit more maturity, it's one of the reasons the community is so toxic in the first place - because there are so many very immature players, unfortunately. It would be nice if it was actually possible to make them understand what their behaviour does to other human beings.
The odd thing, T-bagging has actually been allowed by the devs, but apparently they don't realize that t-bagging is the equivalent of trolling or cyberbullying, which means that when they allow that behaviour they're indirectly saying "we condone trolling and cyberbullying".
well that's the internet bud. immature mates everywhere.
But actually condoning trolling behaviour and cyberbullying? Well, it certainly gives their company name a different meaning! They shouldn't tolerate this kind of behaviour, as it's downright toxic to the gameplay, playerbase and community.
-
@MrChills said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@AdánAR said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
@AdánAR said:
Jajajajajaja stop being a pussy, you deserved it. I always have tryhard killers, campers, tunnelers, rage quitters, who complains about looping, who complains about sabo hooks... I teabbaged them and will always do it. Just getgud and stop cry about it. This is a surv side game i mean #########?Jesus.....
Dude it's the true. Being Killer sucks and it's triggering af. I always play surv and sometimes killer for fun; some matches i get 4k, another ones any kills but i don't open a thread in the forum to cry and complain about toxic survivors. I just move on and play other match.
I know that. But the way you expressed yourself does not help. Just be a bit empathetic next time please.
I vote you as next mod. We need more compassion these forums.
What we also need is a bit more maturity, it's one of the reasons the community is so toxic in the first place - because there are so many very immature players, unfortunately. It would be nice if it was actually possible to make them understand what their behaviour does to other human beings.
The odd thing, T-bagging has actually been allowed by the devs, but apparently they don't realize that t-bagging is the equivalent of trolling or cyberbullying, which means that when they allow that behaviour they're indirectly saying "we condone trolling and cyberbullying".
-
@pauloandrade22 said:
@Incarnate said:
@pauloandrade22 said:
I think its simply because of tecnical issues that they can't have seperate sound sliders for gameplay. And the abuses of course.Technical issues? I know enough about code and game development to know that if they can't specifically isolate specific sounds, then it's because they have designed to their own detriment. Because disabling certain sounds, can be as simple as setting as not having the sound trigger at all.
How exactly can you abuse disabling character screams?
you could make it so that for example as killer you hear moans louder than intended or get the music to be super quiet you know that kind of thing.
In Dbd everything can be abused so the devs need to be super carefull with that .
I wish that they implement a "fade to black flashlight screen" as i get eye pain when i see too much white in my screen multiple times.
How can you make a scream louder, IF it's DISABLED?
I know you could abuse that kind of thing, IF, and only if you could adjust the those specific sounds.
But I'm litterally talking about completely disabling them, thats quite different - How exactly could you get an unfair advantage from DISABLING the character screams? -
@pauloandrade22 said:
I think its simply because of tecnical issues that they can't have seperate sound sliders for gameplay. And the abuses of course.Technical issues? I know enough about code and game development to know that if they can't specifically isolate specific sounds, then it's because they have designed to their own detriment. Because disabling certain sounds, can be as simple as setting as not having the sound trigger at all.
How exactly can you abuse disabling character screams?