Jed
Jed
About
- Username
- Jed
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,472
- Last Active
Comments
-
Sounds good if its Dec 17th. For a non licensed killer maybe a demon. If licensed then of course Pumpkinhead;)
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Jason doesn't teleport. Where did all this come from? You can't use F13 as source material to justify the power.He teleports off screen in the movies hehe. Seriously he gets around way to fast...but then again so does Michael;) For DbD they can just make him like a different version of trapper. Take the trappers terror radius perk and make it like the wraiths bell (using his theme music of course) where you dont know exactly where its coming from. Maybe allow him to stalk like Myers but harder to see. Could make it so he can hide in the shadows or blend in with the environment for first few seconds after he comes into your field of vision. I would suggest a range attack but I dont really want him to be like the huntress. Maybe...and this would be hard...but let him be able to smash through walls or effect the environment in some way. Or (this isn't a exciting idea for a perk) allow Jason to be immune to all suvivor aura perks. Oh and I'm sure he would need a obsession like perk but call it something like last suvivor and make the kill reward more points. Just brainstorming here hehe.
-
So cutting a face off a person and wearing it as a mask is ok. But cutting the face off a person with different skin color then you and wearing it as a mask is bad?
-
Yea I really hope we get Jason some day....right after pumpkinhead of course;)
-
I'm sure it's too much for them to add snow for a event. However the idea of map with snow everywhere sounds cool. Killers could track suvivors footsteps through the snow instead of the default scratch marks.
-
Hmm well I purchased hex ruin (YES FINALLY!) and didn't get a failed message. So I assume/hope it worked hehe.
-
@Khalednazari said:
DwightsLifeMatters said:For example?
Biggest issue when it comes to dedicated server is DDoS attacks.
1. Imagine, its a nice Holiday season, the developers are on a well-deserved vacation, and there's a DDoS attack on the server. That's it then. 'Cannot connect to server' for days together.
2. The Maintenance. There will probably need to be a maintenance day every week, where the game will be down for a few hours once a week. Not much of inconvenience, but still.
3. Server Lags. Since the servers will be based where BHVR is located, i.e. Canada, player logging in from the countries far away in the east, middle east, will still have lags due to high ping.
4. Hardware issues. Every game I have played with a dedicated server, has had atleast a hardware issue once where the game is down for multiple days together.
In the end, like I said, dedicated servers maybe better, but it's still not a perfect system, and has its own cons too.
Ok so the biggest issue for dedicated servers you say is DDoS attacks. Then you give a example how bad it would be to have a DDoS attack during the holiday season. I'm sure its happened but could you (or anyone) list any big popular games with dedicated servers that this has happened to? How long were you unable to play the game? I only ask because the only game that I've played in the last five years that was affected (for like a day) like this by DDoS attacks was the f2p game Warframe...which doesn't have dedicated servers.
-
Two Killers.
8 suvivors.
10 gens.
Massive lag?Unless we got dedicated servers...hmmm.
-
A ruthless killer like the world had never seen....
-
I would be for it!
-
Every time I see a thread like this I give the same answer.....
-
1.5 bloodpoint events doesn't really feel like much so I would prefer 2x...even if it's just the weekend.
-
@inveigle said:
Micheal Myers alternate costumes from various Halloween films.
Hehe that ghost one might be too silly but I dont think the other one would be that bad. I remember he looked pretty intimidating in the movie with that mask.
-
Well anything is better then nothing. Hell I would be fine if we just got more more shards added to each level everytime we increase the devotion level.
-
@Peasant said:
I had a much longer post, but it vanished on me. I'll get straight to the point here.People aren't playing survivor because they want more points and they can fall victim to group penalization.
Survivors earn 15-20k BP a round normally (if you don't die absurdly early) so this combined with the faster queues might actually be better for points than you think.
You can do everything right as survivor, and still die because your team did nothing. With DC's on the rise (according to the community) this is only made worse.
This means that there are three ways to effectively respond.
1.) Increase survivor bloodpoint rewards at base
2.) Enforce stricter DC punishment
3.) Buff survivors (Please for the love of God don't pick this one!)What are your thoughts on this folks?
Increasing the bloodpoints earned for suvivors would probably be the easiest solution. I dont think it would be a complete fix but it should help reduce the waiting time to play as a killer for some people.
If not that then maybe reward more bloodpoints for each game played in a row. Say after playing one game as a suvivor then my next game as a suvivor will have bonus points. Maybe increase the bonus up to say...five games in a row.
Or just have bonus points if you switch from suvivor to killer. The bonus points would go away anytime you tried to play two games in a row as a killer or suvivor.
-
What licensed character would I like added? Well I'm going to continue to show my support for good old Pumpkinhead!
http://pumpkinhead.wikia.com/wiki/Pumpkinhead_Wiki
Edit: Him and his suvivor.
-
Hmm well if it is suppose to be a licensed killer and old then maybe its Pumpkinhead! Actually the oldest story line that I know of for Pumpkinhead goes back to around 1930...unless there is a comic book story line that's older.
-
I was on for over two hours yesterday and could only get two games in as killer. Of course I had no problem starting a game as a suvivor. I've also had the game lock up when loading a new game.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
I hope they come up with something cooler than "The Teacher". Even "The Dentist" sounds scarier.I agree "The Teacher" doesn't sound scary at all.
-
@Yrutan said:
Things that I would expect a DBD movie to have :
-The first four survivors
-The Trapper
-The inability for the survivors to communicate with each other, either speaking is spooking the crows which alert the killer or they each speak different language.
-Showing a few references to the game (survivor personal perks, killer add-on or discovery of offerings).
-The movie ends either the first time that one or all survivor “escape” only to end up at the Hillbilly’s map.If the movie would be different than the game, I would put both the Trapper and the Hillbilly in the same movie. Imagine this, the survivors are running away from the Hillbilly but they eventually end up in the Trapper’s map (by running through the fog or something). They figure this out when the Hillbilly's chainsaw sprint is stopped by a trap or the Hillbilly stops chasing them only for one of the survivors to walk into a trap. That movie would probably end after the (remaining) survivors reach Autohaven and they hear a resounding bell.
Yes and I would pay to see that!..But no no we need millions of dollars to make a movie based off the video game Rampage hehe. I swear people in Hollywood pick the worst games to make into a movie.
-
@Bravo0413 said:
Imo Last Year looks bad ass... and remember more work is going to be done to it.. hide or die is a bit blah but theres still a decent amount of work to be done to it still to be done to it... Tyde stated in his video "dont judge the game on this current state"Huh I'm the opposite on that. I think the last year looks really generic. A crack head looking killer who uses a chain to lasso people just looks really lame to me. I dont know I guess things could change but right now it looks bad. Hide or die also looks pretty meh but it seems they got their idea of the darkness from the movie..The Thing. That could make for some fun gameplay....although I would just prefer The Thing the video game hehe.
-
Dead by waiting.
Dead by load times.
Dead by trolls.
Dead by toxic buttholes.
Dead by tea baggers.
Dead by lag switchers.
Dead by DC.
Dead by lobby dodgers.
Dead by high ping.
Dead by a nurse or a hillbilly.
Dead by a hillbilly nurse. (Oh no!
)Dead by...uh lack of ideas?
-
I picked this game up during the last BBQ event and I think this may be the third time Territorial Imperative has come up. It sucks how we get more bad perks more often then good perks. I know if I buy the hag with shards then the next week they will have ruin hehe. I guess it's that or wait for a year and hope it miraculously shows up by then.
-
@My_Dude said:
But he was Death Hook and all his buddies were dead.
-
@Peasant said:
I think a big part of the problem here is just the false advertising. There are some folks who likely bought Dead by Daylight just to main killers as part of a murder fetish or something similar. Having played my fair share of killer, I can understand why they might be upset.It doesn't help that too few people have taken the time to play and understand both sides.
Only through understanding will we have a less toxic community.
-
Oh no I dont take it personally. I just shrug it off and start a new game...that's all we can do hehe.
-
@fcc2014 said:
and you are planning to get EVIL and bring Mori's with Michael. Red Rank PS4 survivors i apologize in advance.
And they disconnected....Well that seems to be my luck when I go to use a green or red mori hehe.
-
@AnotherRandy said:
Please no. This game is already performing bad like a game with super high quality graphics. After each update people are losing fps. If the rise up quality many people wouldn't be able to play anymoreBut that's what graphical settings are for. If you are trying to run this game on a laptop or crap PC then you can turn it all the way down.
-
Hehe thanks for posting this...good stuff.
-
Hmm would be cool if they could just reward solo players more. Maybe reward killers more for not camping as well.
-
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
AGAIN, I will mention how match size is one of the biggest components. The fewer players there are playing a game, the less connections there are overall, and the less that a dedicated server is truly needed. CoD games have twice as many up to more than ten times as many players in a match than dead by daylight does: they need dedicated servers because so many people are playing. Also, P2P has no distinct benefit for them, because each player is exactly the same, no one has a special role. Again, games that specifically have very few players, 1v1, 2v2, etc, specifically don't use dedicated servers because it would increase latency more often than not for so few players.
The Friday the 13th game has 8 players in a match. 3 more than dead by daylight, and that does justify the need of dedicated servers. Beyond that they did P2P in a very dumb way: one of the councilors was the host, not jason. Meaning if THEY quit, the match would end, period. So dedicated servers is two birds, one stone for them. It puts the responsibility of being the host off of one of the less important players, and the server can better handle the larger number of connections. 3 may not sound like a large increase, but connections are exponential, remember.
And yes, in some ways, dedicated servers could be worse. For one, let's say that they only build the servers in america. Oh, you aren't in america? Sucks for you, you now have 400+ ping for every single match. And, again, it isn't the "cure-all" that everyone thinks it will be. Laggy people will still lag. They'll still rubber band and teleport. In fact, I would say nothing would change. Plus in his post, he mentioned it may have been a deliberate choice by the developers, using it to enforce the "favor the shooter" type of logic. The logic is that it's worse for someone to feel like something should have hit, but latency/etc says it didn't than for someone to get hit by something that they feel shouldn't have hit. Overwatch was built on that. Specifically, games like the older CoD games and such had a "favor the dodger" logic. Meaning you could pump a dozen rounds into them, but the game could flat out tell you no.
What you want is for them to improve the netcode, not get dedicated servers.
Ok so you ARE saying dedicated servers are worse hehe....gotcha.
Oh and apparently if its 5 players and under then p2p is better....how convenient for your argument hehe.
-
Yeah I tried to say thanks but the thread was already closed. So I will say thanks here hehe.
-
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
-
@Patricia said:
Hello everyone!
Our team is aware of the long queues issue, we are discussing on how we can improve the situation.
At the moment I don't have more information, I'll keep you posted.
Thanks for you patience.Good to hear something on this...thank you.
-
Yeah I've been playing serious on and off for this event. Also taking this time to try out some different killers too but thanks for the tips here. I will definitely try doing that tonight hehe.
-
Lots of successful games have dedicated servers and no monthly fee....so no.
-
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
-
Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
-
@ShowMeUrBirb said:
@Jed said:
@Peanits said:
Dedicated servers are not such a clear cut best option. Just a couple, for example:1: More lag for killers. Right now, everything is handled on your end. When you should get a hit, you get a hit. With a dedicated server, there's going to be a delay on everything you do. If someone vaults a window and you hit them them, you might not get a hit because by the time that command gets to the server, they're out of range and safe. It's important that the killer is able to consistently get hits, and missing a single one due to lag can buy the survivor a significant amount of time.
2: Depending on where you live, more lag in general. Dedicated servers are not everywhere, they're a physical thing. If you like in a far off corner of the world with only a few hundred other players, there's probably not going to be a server there. You'd have a significantly higher ping because of it.
3: DDOS attacks in general. They don't go away, the difference is now when people do it, it knocks the game offline for everyone.
4: It's not as simple as just changing some variables, you'd need to rewrite loads of code to add dedicated servers. That means less content for a while, and probably a huge amount of issues with lag that weren't there before.
That's not to say that they're all bad, but is it worth all the problems that come with it? Probably not. About DDOS attacks though: If someone threatens you with one, please report them in-game. We take stuff like that very seriously, and they will likely receive a permanent ban for doing so. It's a game, there's no reason to threaten people like that. Same goes for any other real life/DOX threats. Just make absolutely sure that you report them in-game, as this will save the chat log for us to review.
Hmm...why then do so many competitive online games have dedicated servers? I know most console games dont but PC players always seem to want it. The game Warframe doesn't have dedicated servers and gets DDOS attacks on a regular basis it seems...which makes the game unplayable.
A ) Because those games' code was written with the intention of having dediacted servers.
B ) Because they at the very beginning adjusted their business model to cover cost of servers
C ) Because they had enough staff to host those servers. (AFAIK BHVR had less than 100 people when the game launched)
D ) DDOS is not as common as it may look like. After all you must have an army of infected computers to DDOS someone.
E ) Have you seen problems with logging-in when the event started? If we would have dedicated servers we would have this for not only logging-in but also games. (and for much longer)Ok...so it comes down to money hehe...gotcha.
-
@Peanits said:
Dedicated servers are not such a clear cut best option. Just a couple, for example:1: More lag for killers. Right now, everything is handled on your end. When you should get a hit, you get a hit. With a dedicated server, there's going to be a delay on everything you do. If someone vaults a window and you hit them them, you might not get a hit because by the time that command gets to the server, they're out of range and safe. It's important that the killer is able to consistently get hits, and missing a single one due to lag can buy the survivor a significant amount of time.
2: Depending on where you live, more lag in general. Dedicated servers are not everywhere, they're a physical thing. If you like in a far off corner of the world with only a few hundred other players, there's probably not going to be a server there. You'd have a significantly higher ping because of it.
3: DDOS attacks in general. They don't go away, the difference is now when people do it, it knocks the game offline for everyone.
4: It's not as simple as just changing some variables, you'd need to rewrite loads of code to add dedicated servers. That means less content for a while, and probably a huge amount of issues with lag that weren't there before.
That's not to say that they're all bad, but is it worth all the problems that come with it? Probably not. About DDOS attacks though: If someone threatens you with one, please report them in-game. We take stuff like that very seriously, and they will likely receive a permanent ban for doing so. It's a game, there's no reason to threaten people like that. Same goes for any other real life/DOX threats. Just make absolutely sure that you report them in-game, as this will save the chat log for us to review.
Hmm...why then do so many competitive online games have dedicated servers? I know most console games dont but PC players always seem to want it. The game Warframe doesn't have dedicated servers and gets DDOS attacks on a regular basis it seems...which makes the game unplayable.
-
@Fibijean said:
F13 had dedicated servers when it came out, and I'm guessing a larger budget since it was a licenced game. Now that DbD has been out for 2+ years, it's going to be more difficult and resource-consuming to switch to dedicated servers than it would have been to start out with them. Also ddosing isn't that huge a problem - the evidence for that being the very fact that they're not making dedicated servers a higher priority. It sucks that it happens at all, but the truth is it's not a common enough occurence for it to actually affect the reputation of the game and the company.Wasnt Friday the 13th a kickstarter game backed by fans? If so then i would be surprised if they had a bigger budget. The console version of F13 just got dedicated servers a few months ago or so and I highly doubt that game has money pouring in to support it now. I got it a little over q year ago on steam and the daily numbers now are lucky to hit around 500 players. If a dead or dying game can afford it (without having any microtransactions) then I dont see why DBD cant have dedicated servers.
-
@Peanits said:
Given that the only way to earn all your vials in the event, yes, a lot more people are playing killer right now.Right but this has always been a problem. The event has just made it worse is all.
-
Yeah lots of people been complaining about this...even before the event. My average wait time is around twenty minutes...sometimes more.
@Master said:
Just wait a few days until the survivor mains give up on killer and switch to survivor again.The event lasts 2 weeks
Yeah I've been doing that but unfortunately i have already come across trolls blocking the event hooks. I figure these people are mad that they cant participate in the event after getting their 30 vials so naturally they plan to take it out on other players. I suspect this will only get worse the closer we get to the events deadline.
-
Yeah they sell cosmetics in this game like its f2p to so I expect more out of them then this.
-
@TheDarkLycan said:
@fcc2014 said:
@TheDarkLycan said:
@fcc2014 said:
@TheDarkLycan said:
you do have enough time though, I finished the event last nightHow many hours did you play? I got 38 vials in 15hrs and that felt like i played a lot.
I played for 12 hours from when the event started so up till 1am then played from 8pm till 2 am the next day so I grinded hella hard this weekend
Holy Hell! Are you burned out?
not at all, I really only need about 3 hours of sleep a day then I'm ready to play some more and I did take a couple of breaks in between so I only really was grinding for about 28 hours
It took you 28 hours to get all sixty vials? Wow..you must have no wait time at all between games..or alot of friendly farming. It takes me at least twenty to thirty minutes to get a match going as the killer. I would guess I've put in roughly the same amount of play time but only have 17 suvivor and 7 killer vials. I will be lucky if I can play two hours a day all week so i guess its going to be pretty hard for people like me to hit sixty vials.
-
@Watery said:
The issue with that is there’s a huge difference in how it’s played on console and PC. It’d be hard to win against a PC killer; if they’re good.
Maybe if consoles que’d together, that’d be fine.Sure you are at a disadvantage using a controller against someone using keyboard and mouse...especially in shooters hehe. I have always used a controller on PC for this game and still enjoy it. I survive and get four kills on a regular basis too.
-
I'm happy they allowed us to be able to farm two cosmetic sets but I am afraid I (and maybe most) wont have enough time to get both. I've already got 17 vials on suvivor side but only 5 for killer. I will only get around two hours to play each day this week and it usually takes a good 20 to 30 minutes to get a match going as the killer. Most my games have been good but I've already had suvivors blocking the event hooks. I'm think this will only get worse when more people finish collecting vials on the suvivor side.
-
I could see maybe increasing the number of traps he starts with but not really sure after that. For me playing with trapper is like going fishing. You have good days and you have bad days hehe.
-
Yeah same for me.
-
This question is for all three of you. How fast is your internet speed? I mean mine isnt the best (100 mbps) but I have never had anyone accuse me of lag switching in this game or any other. I did however have a couple of questionable matches yesterday that had huge lag spikes at very convenient moments during the game.