Johnny_XMan
Johnny_XMan
About
- Username
- Johnny_XMan
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,584
- Last Active
Comments
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2347972#Comment_2347972
That just looks like someone slapped them into FaceApp and called it a day. Like ######### is that Quentin? Covering them in Makeup isn't a way to improve them
Lol I mean essentially that is what they are doing.
Re-skinning the 3D model. It’s not like they edited what was already there. So maybe not the Quentin in this example (tho I think he looks cute) but look at Feng and how cute she looks vs Feng now. Or Steve, same but elevated Steve.
I just know for some of them, they ended up not looking the same and far worse than the older skin. Which is a shame.
-
Edit
Look at these for example:
To me this is an upgrade. While still keeping some of their signature characteristics.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
Reworked Claudie is a queen but reworked David, especially his reworked shirtless, makes me just
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/C5Z7P3EM2UW0/20210709-092649.jpg
Yeah I exaggerated when I say all of them.
I think Claudette, Jake, Laurie, dare I say even Cybil look gorg. I’m actually gonna buy Cybil now that she looks better.
It’s weird on some models it looks like the face animation makes them look bad and on others it’s their face entirely. Personally I feel like if the look can’t elevate what was already there it should be tweaked. I think they did a phenomenal job on reworking clothes and hair textures (with a few minor exceptions)… but it’s the faces where I think they missed the mark.
-
People had a problem with Billy’s basekit meanwhile we have a killer who is about to down you with 12 mini knives. 👀
-
It feels like they shrunk his eyes and gave him thin eyebrows.
This is where I feel like they tried too much to keep it as similar to his old face, but the end result was a worse version of the original.
At this point I would have rather them just use someone else’s reference with David’s characteristics:
-
I think the fact that the map got delayed with this chapter didn’t make the excitement as long lasting.
-
Why would it be because of Victor? I thought EAC more or less bans you because of actually cheating I.e. messing with files, hacks etc.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345236#Comment_2345236
Camping would almost stop altogether if survivors didn't reward it. Sure, maybe once in a while you get the odd team that knows not to reward campers, but most of the time, the killer is rewarded for camping with an easy 3-4k trial. That's what I mean by an attitude change: survivors as a whole need to stop rewarding campers.
In the current state of the game, sure, not rewarding the killer potentially gives 3 survivors a chance to escape.
Here is the problem though. Most of the time neither of those 3 survivors had fun. Nobody has fun holding M1 through an entire match. It is the same feeling as when a killer afks, and survivors are scrounging for more points. This doesn’t help the grind that already exists.
Do I think that in the best case scenario all 3 should be able to escape? Absolutely. Do I think this creates a fun and interactive experience? Not in the least.
So for me, this is where I see potential for the game to grow. Sometimes it also means growing out of these scenarios that do not promote fun.
-
@Cruella said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345147#Comment_2345147
Yes, but the devs would ######### it up like they always do, and complete the update with 20 new bugs, 90 new cosmetics, and end up not doing what the community wanted. Then, we'll go through 3 PTBs until they get it right, and 3 MORE PTBs for them to fix all of the new bugs.
I honestly don't think camping is a big issue. I haven't seen a facecamping killer(at 5 gens) in over 3 years. It's rare, and a free escape for survivors.
Speculation works both ways. What about if they actually made something worth their time? Like where the killer can still camp but the survivor still has a chance of playing the game?
Camping is a free escape for survivors, but what about the player who didn’t get to play the game? Too bad for them right?
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345174#Comment_2345174
I am simply pointing out that anytime someone as much as breathes the words “camping should be addressed” this whole “they already tried it and it didn’t work because survivors abused it” words get randomly thrown. It is an observation I have from being on these forums.
In my experience, that's said when people propose the thing that has already been tried and proven to be a failure.
For me if the killer is flat out Camping and no one is there, that isn’t survivors placing the killer in that situation. That is the killer attempting to force the situation onto survivors.
The killer should be able to force situations onto survivors, though. That's one of the characteristics of an asymmetrical game.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to get at? But to me that is the killer saying “I don’t care if you do generators I am not playing the game”.
Bait can be a very powerful tool, if used correctly. The killer is playing the game, they're just doing it in a way that many survivors find unpleasant.
Furthermore, my main concern isn’t even about other survivors, but I am much more interested in finding ways to make that survivor on the hook feel like they even played the game, even if it’s throwing points at them for basically opting to stay.
Failure should not be rewarded in video games. And yes, that survivor failed - it's how they ended up on the hook. If you die too soon, you learn from your mistakes and try to do better next time. That's how every game works.
Life is too short and queues are too long to be stuck in a match where the killer wants to keep you hostage rendering you unable to do anything.
You're not being held hostage. You probably know what the term actually means, so let's not dilute its meaning.
I have never played any other game where this type of abusive behavior was allowed without resulting in some balance change.
I went back to BF3 a few years back, decided to hop onto multiplayer. I ended up in a game where we'd lost control of the entire map and were stuck at spawn. Any time one of us stepped out, the enemy team would be there, waiting for us, and killed us fairly quickly. We could've pushed them back if we worked together, but many decided to give up and just wait it out.
For many survivors, this would be considered abusive behavior. How dare the other team not give us a chance? However, it's just how PvP games work. It wasn't unbalanced or abusive, the other team just wanted to make sure they'd win.
Camping doesn't need a balance change, it needs an attitude change.
I respectfully disagree. Killers who camp for the 1k generally make those of us who actually took the time to learn a killer look bad.
I am not asking for killers to play how survivors want them to play, but I am also not tone deaf to how silly standing by a hook while 3 others hold M1 looks.
That isn’t how the game is meant to be played or else you’d have a “Camping Emblem” attached to the ones that already exist.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345147#Comment_2345147
None of the suggested "fixes" for the thing they tried addresses why it was a failure in the first place. Simply put, survivors should not be able to place the killer in a situation where the correct course of action is to let the survivors do whatever they want, unless those survivors are just overwhelmingly better than the killer (in which case it's a matchmaking problem). That is a massive balance issue.
I am simply pointing out that anytime someone as much as breathes the words “camping should be addressed” this whole “they already tried it and it didn’t work because survivors abused it” words get randomly thrown. It is an observation I have from being on these forums.
For me if the killer is flat out Camping and no one is there, that isn’t survivors placing the killer in that situation. That is the killer attempting to force the situation onto survivors. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to get at? But to me that is the killer saying “I don’t care if you do generators I am not playing the game”.
Furthermore, my main concern isn’t even about other survivors, but I am much more interested in finding ways to make that survivor on the hook feel like they even played the game, even if it’s throwing points at them for basically opting to stay. Life is too short and queues are too long to be stuck in a match where the killer wants to keep you hostage rendering you unable to do anything. I have never played any other game where this type of abusive behavior was allowed without resulting in some balance change.
-
@Cruella said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2344937#Comment_2344937
Nope. Looping near a hook is a thing. They did something similar a while ago and it backfired from survivors abusing it. You did this to yourselves.
You know, first off yes they tried something in the past. I’m sure OP wasn’t even around when it happened, but I am also sure he/she didn’t “do it” to themselves.
This is such a poor attitude to have, especially when it is a well known fact that Camping isn’t always just used as a “strat”.
Just because they tried something and it didn’t work out, does not mean that is the end of all things. They could have approached other ideas…example: as long as every other survivor is holding M1 (you know being bored out of their skull) the struggle timer for the survivor being camped, slows down the more the killer remains in the area. This would also reward the survivor additional points. THAT to me sounds like they actually took the time to navigate/explore better options while not completely making the survivor holding on for dear life waste their time.
It’s not rocket science.
-
I understand your frustration and this game after 5 years has yet to come up with a solution for unfair Camping.
The best advice I can give you is basically if you feel like your team could have a chance. Meaning they are A) not crouching around not doing gens B) not farming you off the hook in an effort to trade. DO attempt to buy them sometime, not all gens are going to get done through both your hook stages because other variables exist, like your team needs to know Bubba is actually camping.
However, by your team actually doing gens the game will deny him of points towards his Gatekeeper (because he is not slowing down gen repair). And so on.
I know these aren’t exactly “counters” and trust me I wish I could tell you there was, even in a SWF situation it is one of the hardest things to pull off.
Hopefully some day they will balance it in a way where it isn’t being used as a tool to simply annoy others.
-
There are way too many things to address in everything you’ve said, but generally I agree.
The thing is, by nature this type of game tends to bring the ugly out of people. I am including myself in that because sometimes I engage in conversations that I later regret giving them any attention at all.
I think for me, I look at it this way. It’s just a game, and that’s not to say that you should shut off how you feel, but also understand that 99% of the time no matter what you say, that other person thinks you are their enemy at that moment simply because you were the opposing side. They are going to see every little bit of strategy used as you were just bad and opted to play scummy.
I am not saying that there aren’t those people who opt to camping or tunneling simply because they want to be annoying. Certainly those people do exist.
I think the most important part is that you have fun, if your matches aren’t going in any other direction than constantly being camped or BM’d and it’s getting to you. Take a break. The game is no longer being fun.
The last thing I personally wanna do is go into a match and have to play therapist afterwards b/c someone had a problem with something I did. If I want to point something out I will, but I am not going to spend a long session trying to get someone to see the brighter side of DBD.
-
I actually find Twins fun. Both playing as and facing them.
If I could just use Victor all the time I would. It’s fun to zoom around and creep on survivors.
They are probably up there in terms of uniqueness. The fact that you can “split” up and hunt survivors down literally gives this killer so much complexity and it feels refreshing to not have to be tied to one option all the time.
I understand they aren’t as fun to go against when those lazy players just park Victor by the hook, but believe me I am the first one to advocate that this shouldn’t be possible. The devs could literally make it so that if someone parks him by the hook, his killer instinct won’t go off. This will discourage people from knowing every time someone goes for a save.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
I really dislike new David. He’s lost his rough tough look.
His eyebrows used to be thicker too, idk why they softened his face tbh.
just seems like a rushed job imo.
-
Pretty much.
Part of why DBD has been popular to me is that although we all know it is not as scary as it once was when we started the game, the genre is still without a doubt a Horror genre.
I think from an aesthetic standpoint he looks too much like a survivor and not enough like a killer. Even those who through their Lore we are told were once beautiful are now terrifying and intimidating, like Adiris for example. You can tell she was once beautiful and statuesque… and yet every time I see her I wonder what she used to look like. Like, there is a story there. This is why I love her, because her presence and overall aesthetic resemble the tragedy of her backstory.
With Trickster is the opposite of that effect.
-
No it does not.
-
It literally says "Moved:" right next to the title.
Posts aren't being closed, they are being moved so they are consolidated in the PTB changes feedback section.
-
@Warcrafter4 said:
Given that some killers like Oni/Michael are literally designed around slugging(Oni Literally losing their power when they pick up a survivor and Michael has to maximize his limited number of Tier 3 empowerments)...
Also having perks like knockout/deer stalker that empower slugging...
I doubt the devs will ever change it.
I am a Michael main and the only time I have slugged is because survivors got too altruistic. So I don't think Michael was designed to "slug".
The camping Michaels that 99 their T3 just waiting for someone to unhook, sure, I'll give you those, but seeing as that isn't a design choice but rather a player choice, I disagree with that first comment.
-
What do I think of it?
It needs to be built-in, and not a perk.
-
@ThiccBudhha said:
Well, as a console player, pretty sure turning off crossplay would only subject me to more of this nonsense. Ha ha ha...
Wait, you get better performance when you play with PC players?
-
@ShinobuSK said:
Its almost as if console optimization was non existent in this game or something
I can't even imagine how bad it is on console, but I can only speak for myself. The game is overdue for optimization.
I have to wonder how frustrating it must be on their end, but then again with these mini-lag spikes (I don't know what do even call them anymore) I don't know who has it worst. xD
Basically I didn't record my gameplay, but this is the exact thing I am talking about:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1410255151840088069I took this from someone who posted it on twitter, it was like this but on killer.
-
Twins are extremely fun IMO.
-
@ThiccBudhha said:
So you have never seen Chris during his depressed alcoholism stage, huh? Not as exciting as the Boulder, but just as important to the consistent characterization of Chris we know and love.
Honestly the more I hear about him, the more I wanna know. I'm sure there is a lot of the character's development I am not aware of yet. xD
-
@Zokenay said:
Oh believe me, you DO NOT wanna play RE5 without a second player, the AI partner is HORRENDOUS, you basically have to babysit her constantly, has no concept of ammo preservation, gets herself in danger all the time, gets stuck, is slow, etc.
Luckily I have a friend who is a huge RE fan and already claimed a spot to play with me then. 😁
Is this the only RE game with Co-op?
-
@Huge_Bush said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2335043#Comment_2335043
The topic isn't about whether or not I camp at 5 gens, this is about justice, a concept which you obviously have little knowledge of.
This isnt a courtroom and you aren't a lawyer.
Stop acting like you are camping at 5 gens and getting 4ks. The name of the game is "Kill survivors" not "Throw the game because you wanted to be a jerk".
-
@Huge_Bush said:
No, the reasons you list are your opinion. The Devs are the ones who set the laws and as long as the player follows the laws, anything they choose to do is justified.
It doesn't matter if it the most absurd thing you heard, it is a legitimate reason for someone to camp at 5 gens. We are not talking about skilled or unskilled killers, we are talking about justice within a game made by Behaviour who dictates what is and isn't allowed.
The killer is justifed to use camping for whatever reason they want, whenever they want, as long as it falls within the parameters of what the Developers have set.
I hope you never pursue law because you would be terrible at it.
HAHAHAHA ok buddy.
Keep camping at 5 gens I am sure you are going up those ranks very quickly.
-
@HaunterofShadows said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2334945#Comment_2334945
that is justification also you don't need to @ him every message it does that the moment you quote him.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2334945#Comment_2334945
Why doesn't securing a kill justify camping?
It is only frowned upon because it isn't fun for the camped survivor, not because it is the easy route.
I am not twisting anything, you are.
Definition of Justified:
adjective
adjective: justified
1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.
Securing a kill early in the match is a legitimate reason for the killer to camp. That is a fact. You aren't thinking with facts, you're thinking with emotions.
I didn't ask why securing a kill justifies camping, I asked how you think face-camping at 5 gens is justifiable, and your answer was "securing a kill" assuming that everyone who does that, is securing a kill is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Let alone the fact that most skilled killers would just tell you that you are throwing the game if you do that.
A legitimate reason to camp in this game would be something like "Survivors were surrounding the hook" "Survivor with a flashlight never left" "All gens are done, so there is nothing else to pressure aside from the hook"... NOT "I did it because the Nea head on me" "I felt like it and I wanted them to have a bad experience". THAT is what I mean when I say that I don't care in which way to try to excuse facecamping because under THOSE reasons it isn't justifiable.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2334904#Comment_2334904
It is securing a kill, which is making the game easier for themselves as the match goes on, especially if the survivors keep feeding the killer by hovering around the hook, which they often do.
It is your personal opinion since you don't know what the killer is thinking when they camp at 5 gens.
Securing a kill does not make it justifiable. That is literally what I am arguing.
Everybody knows that it is the 'easy' route, which is why it is so frowned upon.
You can say/twist it in whatever way you'd like, facts are facts. It is not justified.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2334841#Comment_2334841
But they do have a legitimate reason to do it, to secure a kill. Whether or not it is a broken tactic is another discussion and really only falls down to personal opinion.
They are not securing a kill when there are 5 gens up and they are facecamping.
It's not personal opinion when you know the game well enough to understand how some tactics aren't used as tactics every single time.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2334728#Comment_2334728
It doesn't matter if killers camp just because they can or if its because they over committed or made a mistake that lost them gens faster than they could handle. Camping is justified because it is a tactic that the Devs have repeatedly stated is allowed and non-reportable.
Whether it is a survivor or killer player, as long as they're not hacking or working with the opposing side or breaking any rules that the Devs have set, anything any player does is justified because it is a part of the game. The players don't get to set the rules, the Devs do, and until the Devs come out and say camping, tunneling or slugging are bannable offenses, killers are justified to use them because they are all a part of the game, just as flashlight saving, body blocking, hook saboing and whatever else survivors use in order to give their side an edge.
I don't think you understand what I am asking. Justified means that they have a legitimate reason to do it. Many times even under circumstances where they (the survivors) didn't do anything that you listed the killer camps. I.E. they do it without it being justified because it doesn't need to be, they are allowed to do it by the game. Regardless of how broken of a tactic it is.
Which is why I asked you (the person saying it is justified) why you think it is.
-
Michael Myers: How to know if Michael has a Tombstone.
When Michael reaches Tier 3 Evil Within, if his left fist is closed it means it is a normal tier 3. If his fist is opened then you're about to die O.O.
This helps especially if you don't have anything to work with, but there is a locker around, you can hop in it to at least avoid getting mori'd.
(I don't know if this was common knowledge, but he is my main) 😉
edit: just realized this was for killer tips, not survivors xD
-
@Huge_Bush said:
It's justified whenever the killer wants to use it. It would be nice if they waited to use it when they're down to two or less gens, but if survivors can deny a killer a hook by blinding, pallet stunning, body blocking or sabotaging, then the killer has the same right to deny an unhook through the use of face camping. Anyone survivor who says otherwise is a hypocrite.
Just out of curiosity.... what makes it justified? Usually I've seen bad killers facecamp when no one has done any of those things.
They might have over-committed to a survivor meanwhile 3 gens pop, like, is that justified? Or is it them making a mistake by not splitting the pressure. In which case if it's the latter, justified isn't the word I'd use. More like they just doing it because they can.
-
@VladTheLegend14 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2333827#Comment_2333827
This is true but I feel like you all are going into semantics when the problem is there is a way to play the game that is better than the other and that's the bigger issue
My arguments are based off of what OP had presented to us. Nothing more.
Literally nobody is arguing that SWF is better than SoloQ, I Agree. What I don't agree with is that they think Survivors in Solo Q are not bad, that what they lack is communication. To which I would argue that they are bad because there have been many instances (and I am sure I am not the only case) Where I bring Kindred, and survivors still will not come to unhook, even though they can see the killer is nowhere near.
Also, this:
Isn't survivor's fault. Even in SWF it is very hard to take aggro off of someone, if the killer is focused on killing one survivors to the point of throwing the game. That isn't something communication is going to fix, that is a tunneling problem that exists within the game.
-
@Troman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2333566#Comment_2333566
You were just told by the OP that he performed much better playing SWF and I experience that too, when plating SWF. Did his skill magically improve when he started playing SWF? Solo sucks not because solo survivors suck, many killers such just as much, it's because in SWF you are working as a team, it's called synergy. It's not about the skill, it's about the balance and SWF+comms surely shifts that balance by a lot.
Again. Look at my response. Of course SWF is better, but it isn't like the mere fact that communication exists makes my friends play better. I know them and I can attest to the fact that they can run the killer for a decent amount of time and save me when I most needed it. I can't put my trust on a random who for all I know is way below my rank.
Solo survivors do suck many times, what game have you been playing?
-
@Artemisha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2333566#Comment_2333566
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/196B9S904MA0/image.png
Map Information is related to performance inevitably. And best deccision making. So yes...communications are very good.
Killers can tunnel and camp also with SWF. But.... SWF can handle better with this tactic doing more efficient rescues or repairs. Whts is more....there were games where killers were being abused. And honestly, If Huntress wouldn´t have gained pressure proxy camping, she wouldn´t have had any chance.
I never said communication isn't good. I said communication isn't going to fix Solo Q survivors incompetence. Two very different things.
Even without nearly as much communication you can have a decent match if survivors are aware of their surroundings, even when the killer is camping. I've had killers asked if we were SWF when I was in a team of solos before... wanna know why? Because normally SoloQ teammates also don't want to take aggro whether it's taking hits by bodyblocking or just trading hooks. They aren't willing to do it where it's necessary.
So yes SWF will always be better, but not for the reasons you are thinking.
-
Or imagine if you played with those same people without comms. My guess is you would have done ok too.
Solo Q doesn’t suck because of the lack of communication it is their lack of skill, their lack of making conscious decisions like when to get someone off the hook or heal with self care in the corner of the map etc. Those are things that no amount of communication is going to fix. I have brought Kindred so many times only to watch my teammates crouch the moment they heard a heartbeat and step into a locker to hide. They do not understand the concept of being proactive during a match.
Also, I notice you mention that you get tunneled and camped, just because you experience that in SoloQ doesn’t mean you aren’t going to in SWF, and that also isn’t your teammates’ fault. It’s a killer choosing to do so.
-
No, only because normally I am here to give my input and it would just be a waste of time if I wasn't actively playing the game. I could be doing other things.
-
-
@Emeal said:
BHVR is working on a system to make blood appear on Survivors as they are mutilated.
So this isn't necessary.
Oh I wasn't aware they were actually actively working on something like that, have they said when it is releasing?
Also, I don't think it is the same because I don't think you get to keep the bloody clothing afterwards. So I think this is different.
-
@RamiSamii said:
Not sure why they couldn't. Owning Lisa, Claire, and Jonathan, it is a bit annoying to have their respective characters (Cheryl, Jill, and Steve) all three P3, but they can't be. Hoping Lisa, Cybil, and Jonathan all get their own voices this mid-chapter as well since Chris and Claire showed that it's possible also.
I wouldn’t mind it on Cybil at all, might make her look better lol 😂
I hope they follow some of this feedback, and I do agree those skins should really warrant their prices a bit more.
-
Honestly blame the devs.
They are the ones who allowed you to be in that position in the first place. So many things happen in this game (people getting hit in places they shouldn’t have, game crashing because of server errors) that isn’t the killer’s fault but just due to poor optimization.
With that being said, not all of us who play killer are that thirsty. You just got stuck with someone who is clearly low-skilled level and fears losing even when you guys are at a disadvantage. At which point you just try to do your best to get as many points as you can, because it is no longer a match at that point.
-
Bite the Bullet to me just seems like it’s more of a perk for new survivors. Or at least someone who loves to heal and constantly misses skill checks.
If those two don’t apply to you, than you’d be wasting a perk slot.
-
@MrDardon said:
As a Chris Main myself, I'd be down for it. Also giving seperate cosmetics for legendary's would be cool as well.
But yeah, having P3 would be cool.
Let's hope they can do this! 😄
-
@TragicSolitude said:
Yes, they should.
I also actually think the "Impervious Agent" and "Persistent Investigator" linked sets really need a prestige option, because you're paying for a Jill head you already own and Leon's head is just barely slightly different from his default. A prestige option for those outfits would actually make them worth the money.
Right now, with Jill's "Persistent Investigator" set, a player is required to pay for a head they already own just to prevent them from using the outfit with Jill's prestige head, which is the exact same head but with a little blood. Not only do you lose out on one head option but you're paying to have it taken away. #########.
I'm sure those could be future options for sure. I was more or less focusing on the default cosmetics for Legendary skin characters, because technically they are entirely different characters.
I do get what you mean tho. If the character has the same exact head, there is no reason why you couldn't swap them.
-
@glitchboi said:
That's a really nice edit, me likey.
I think if you already have P3 for the latter you should have all of the bloody options. If you have P1 or P2 only then you get the bloody shirt and pants only. If you unlock P3 later you can unlock the bloody head as well.
Thank you! My PS skills are very rusty these days.
Yeah, you would basically be prestiging "Leon" but then it would also apply to ANY Legendary attached to that first character. :)
-
@adam1233467 said:
It would be pretty cool, imagine useing bloody lisa
Yes! I love playing Lisa too.
I also think its something that being bloody is already very much a part of their aesthetic in their own respective games too:
So it's not like it would be a 'drastic' change. xD
-
@RoboMojo said:
It definitely would make the legendary cosmetics more worthwhile. Right now, it's kind of a hard sell as you're basically paying 15 quid for a character who has no alternative cosmetics.
I agree. I feel like it would also encourage players to want to prestige those characters because right now if someone prefers playing Chris over Leon or Claire over Jill, there is no real benefit to prestiging Jill and Leon.
Just an idea :)
