Karl_Childers
Karl_Childers
About
- Username
- Karl_Childers
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,877
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Killermain6116 said:
I could see swf abusing this perk by the person hooked telling you were the killers is at all times it’s like A a OOO OBJECT OF OBSESSIONS BUT KILLER DOSNT GET ANY BENNFITS
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. Where in this does it say the hooked survivor can see the killer at all times?!
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/615029#Comment_615029
Oh. For sure - if a killer thinkk the game is going too fast, then by all means run Ruin or find another perk to do it.
That's part of the reason I main doc, because with the right build I can slow the gens without needing to use Ruin. I detest Hex totems but I'm not going to complain if things go to fast because I won't use it.
Cool, no issue at all with your post then! Sorry for jumping the gun and assuming you’d be one sided lol.
As for the actual topic, I don’t really think anything should be done about camping or tunneling at base...same as I feel about gens (unless both things were addressed, that is). Just use the perks given. I would just prefer Kindred also had a use when another person is hooked though. I would totally use it then. As it stands, it’s hard to justify it when I find perks like DS and especially BT to be absolutely necessary. Since Kindred is a solo survivor perk, I do think there’s room to make it stronger imo.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/614962#Comment_614962
How is that relevant to this thread?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/614947#Comment_614947
Um, they have NOT refused to close that gap. Things like showing what hexes are affecting you, seeing who the obsession is and if they are being chased, are all efforts to close the gap.
Perks are just a nice bonus they gave us solo players. It's on you if you choose not to run them.
Its totally relevant. When solo survivors want something done about camping in the base game, they are mocked and told to use multiple perks....as you did. When a killer complains that they shouldn’t need to run multiple gen slowing perks, most people jump on board and say BHVR needs to slow down gens at base. I just find that to be hypocritical, so I was wondering if you felt the same about both sides. Just as you say survivors have perks to deal with their issues, then so do killers. Yet one is an accepted criticism around here and the other isn’t.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
it's almost as if Kindred or Bond doesn't exist for these people
So wierd.... they won't run perks that help them with the very problems they have.
Would you say it’s equally weird that killers have gen slowing perks like Ruin, but complain that they shouldn’t have to use them?
-
@undeadmauler said:
Run kindred and boom there ya go information for everyone
Yeah sure, when you are hooked. What about when someone else is? That’s the problem with Kindred and why I think the perk should also activate for you when another person is hooked. I have Kindred and a teammate is hooked? I get to see the other survivors and killer aura. If a solo survivor should have to use a perk for info SWF has for free, then the perk should be more useful than just when you are on the damn hook. As it stands you are using a perk slot, and STILL not getting what SWF has for free.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/613658#Comment_613658
As I said earlier; you know exactly what my point is and that's why you have to selectively focus on something else. You spent most of your post not even talking about EGC, but killers receiving the hatch-close. You also have to frame what my opinions supposedly are, because that's easier than actually having to take note of what I actually post.
Whether there have statistically been more or less kills since EGC was introduced is not something either of us can know, but you seem to want to base an argument on that completely unknown fact. Say we did know though and this still represents a deliberate missing of the point: if kills had increased it says nothing about what the intent of the changes were. The devs were talking about hatch-closing causing the gates to automatically power as soon as the PTB for it was over, far too soon for any data to have been processed; the devs had already made their mind up about it before they had seen what it looked like in the wild.
As you keep asserting this claim about 'more kills' though, there is an onus on you to support it. So go on.
Closing the hatch is a big part of EGC, what in the world do you mean I’m not talking about it? Do you seriously need data to tell you less survivors are escaping now in a 1v1 than before EGC? Holy hell man, you take being biased to a whole new level. It’s common sense and impossible for it not to be the case. You said yourself all the killer could do before is stand there and force a stalemate. Now they can CLOSE it. It is a 100% fact that the killer benefits and gets more kills now than before. You just seem bent out of shape that it powers the gates. Boo hoo, it still is killer favored overall...a point in which 99.99% of people would agree with. Start new topic saying EGC is heavily survivor sided and see where that gets you if you don’t believe me.
As I said, literally the only benefit that EGC has brought to survivors is a hatch with 0 or 1 gens. Nothing else. As for the non 1v1, this also only benefits the killer. How about you list all the benefits to survivors? Putting survivors on a timer sure as hell doesn’t help them lol.
To sum things up, just because something isn’t as one sided as you’d like it be, doesn’t mean it still doesn’t favor that side.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/613563#Comment_613563
Well be sure to list what killers gain from EGC. You never got round to that.
Lol ummm...let’s see, there’s this thing now where the killer can close the hatch? You see, the killer actually moves a lot faster than the survivor and also doesn’t need to worry about being chased, so they actually have a big advantage in being able to find it first. After closing it, the survivor usually doesn’t have much chance, if the gates are close they literally have no chance. Before EGC, that survivor had a significantly better chance at escaping in a 1v1. But according to your insane logic, less chance of escape = heavily survivor favored lmao.
You seem to believe that just because hatch closing powers the gates, that it doesn’t favor the killer, completely oblivious to the fact killers are getting far more kills than they used to in end game. Once again according to your logic, more kills = survivor favored.
-
@Brok3n said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/613300#Comment_613300
Are you saying that if the killer finds and closes the hatch that it shouldn't be killer sided? I'm confused on the point of your argument
Did you read the whole thing? The guy posted that EGC heavily favors survivors. My reply is just saying that that’s crazy, and that killers have gained a lot by being able to close the hatch now. Claiming it to favor survivors is laughable and makes no sense. Do you believe EGC is survivor sided as he says?
-
@ArecBalrin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/613215#Comment_613215
Yes you do, that's why you cherry-picked so carefully what aspects of EGC to talk about.
Killers had been asking for hatch-closing since day-one because hatch stand-offs were blatantly unfair; survivors finds the hatch first and they win, but killer finds the hatch first and it's a stand-off, in a scenario where the killer hasn't done anything wrong. The survivor who gets the hatch might not have done anything to contribute towards the necessary minimum number of gens done.
When it got to the PTB, this was the closest killers had ever come to having a specific feature that was expressly and notably requested making it into the game, after survivors had dozens over the years. It worked and it was fair, so of course it couldn't go live in that state. The devs were immediately talking about hatch-closing automatically powering the gates, defeating the entire purpose of killers having requested it in the first place. Most maps do not allow for the gates to spawn in a way they can be guarded simultaneously by most killers.
EGC is a total distraction layered over the top of that and doesn't prevent survivors holding a game hostage at all: they can just 99% the gates to hold it off, forcing the killer to do it which is intended because it means conceding the game. It's meant to be humiliating. The devs completely ignored feedback from killers over the EGC PTB, except for how the effect clashes with scratch-marks(something they shouldn't have even needed to be told, as if it was done deliberately).
I cherry picked? You made the statement that EGC heavily favors survivors and that is pure nonsense. Nothing in your post backs it up. The 1v1 is heavily killer sided, how can you possibly even dispute this. How do survivors benefit when the killer can close the hatch now, that makes no sense at all. Just because you didn’t get the version of hatch closing that you wanted, does NOT mean it still isn’t killer sided. Come on now. You don’t think there’s a big rise of 4Ks now compared to before pre-EGC? Your gate argument is also so flawed, how in the world do you think it’s easier now for the last survivor to escape than it used to be? Killers gained big time with it and that’s a fact. Sorry but your extreme killer bias is just making you sound ridiculous.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
Nothing exists in vacuum; it's the context that makes something useful as a whole. Even DS in 2016 was fine; the problem was everyone could use it, not just the Obsession and it came after pallets were given the unjustified super-buffs.
I don't buy the 'it's cos Self-Care got nerfed' narrative either, for a simple reason: they never went live. They were tested on the PTB in January for 2.5. When that patch went live, the changes were not included the PTB updated with a reversion of those changes. Yes, survivors have been complaining about something that never happened, what's new?
Healing itself got an indirect nerf when Sloppy Butcher was given the Mangled status-effect a year ago. The base healing time remains 16 seconds, increased to 32 with Self-Care due to it having a -50% off the base-rate.
Adrenaline is very strong now because of EGC, which heavily favours survivors already.
EGC heavily favors survivors?! The only thing survivors gain from EGC is the ability to possibly get hatch with 0 or 1 gen done. That however, pales in comparison to what the killer has gained being able to slam the hatch shut now. Not even remotely close. EGC is very killer sided so I have no idea what you are talking about here.
-
I like it a lot. I wouldn’t be opposed to it working with a meter so it’s not an instant open, but like a totem if you let go it resets. 15-20 seconds, similar to a gate maybe. Just puts a third option in the back of a killers mind other than just watching the two gates especially when they are close together. It gives the chance to potentially see them at the hatch, which seems fair as opposed to an instant opening without a key.
-
@Mat_Sella said:
I use Kindred in the case of campers, so anything that hurts a campers ability to camp, whether its me or an ally, will be great for the perk.
Yes, it’s definitely annoying and rather weak though to only have it work when you are being camped...seems silly. By having it work both ways, it becomes legit info for a solo survivor vs campers. You’re camped, they see it. Someone else is camped, you see it...or at the very least you’ll know not to go in for a save if someone else is already going, which definitely hurts the camper. With the current version not becoming base, it’s obvious they need to really buff it then...especially with the talk of trying to push solo and SWF closer together. This a perk that only solo players use.
-
@Milo said:
Ain't a bad idea to make it more usefull outside of getting hooked.
Exactly. Kindred is a perk for solo players, but it’s not even good enough to ever bring. Other than Deliverance, a perk only activating when you are hooked doesn’t exactly scream “use me!”, especially when that use is totally reliant on random teammates. It needs to serve an additional purpose like this to become more valuable.
-
If you have the time, could you give me your thoughts on this? I don’t really see how it could be abused by SWF since they already have this info and wouldn’t run it, so unless I’m missing something it seems like a really nice perk boost for frustrated solos. Kindred only working when you are hooked makes it honestly not worth using ever, at least when compared to other more useful perks.I feel like I would definitely try to make room for this version though.
-
@Laakeri said:
I wonder what happened to the idea of Kindred becoming base kit for survivors?
On one of the streams they said they weren’t going to do it...so I think the alternative has to be to make it more useful.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Who told you dbd is supposed to Be toxic.
Toxic is a survivor teabagin after dropping a pallet and hiting the killer, toxic is a survivor taunting the killer only for the sake of it, toxic is a survivor berating killers for anything they do in post chat
You aren’t supposed to die on first hook.
Show me a written rule in a official webpage, tutorial or wiki were is stated that is an inalienable right of the survivors to not die on the first hook! Because I could show you official tutorials and videos where is stated that is the killer choice to camp or not
That’s why you have three chances silly.
You have three chances but once you get downed by a killer is up to him to decide what to do with you, he earned that right once he found, hit twice and down you, is his choice to leave you in the ground, to hook you or completely ignore you!
By camping it ruins that mechanic of the game.
Since camping is a tactic endorsed by the devs, there are no mechanic ruined here
I don’t expect it to be relaxing. I expect it to be playable and not disgustingly toxic.
You play against another player whose objetive is to sacrifice you within the mechanics and tools provided by the game! camping is a valid tactic within the game, so is only your personal opinion that camping is "disgustingly toxic"
Is like saying that in street fighter, is "disgustingly toxic to kill your opponent by throwing him repeatedly without allowing to hit you back" so devs must punish players who do such a thing! is illogical!
If you think camping is fine, you have absolutely no right to complain that teabagging, or anything for that matter, that survivors do during a game is toxic. Where in your rulebook does it say a survivor can’t do that? Teabagging is a legit strategy then as it can piss off the killer and draw aggro, or just throw them off their game in general. We in agreement?
-
@Ember_Hunter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/609544#Comment_609544
This would be really good, but people would always choose Claudette for she seems the easiest.
The way it should work though is that the amount of the bonus would be based off the difficulty of the action...so obviously Claudette healing someone (common action) would yield less of a bonus than say, getting a protection hit (random example) that might be the unique action for a different survivor like David. It would just have to be balanced like that. Jake gets a sabo bonus, Ace a looting chests bonus....the trouble could be finding a different scoring event for everyone though.
-
No.
I do think it would be cool though if each survivor got a little bonus BP doing a specific action though. That would give them something unique without actually boosting any ability. For instance, Claudette gets extra BP for healing people, but doesn’t heal any faster. This gives no buffs but just entices people to play a survivor in a certain manner, which I think could be fun.
-
@hahmraro said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600336#Comment_600336
I think the only way to nerf the corrupt purge is by slightly/moderately reducing its duration. But by doing that the repair and action penalty needs to be better than Thanatophobia AT LEAST.
Yeah I’m not sure, the balance would have to be played around with. It just can’t be forced cleansing without a nerf.
-
@Mat_Sella said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600336#Comment_600336
it's not strong at all considering you have to go out of your way to
1.head to a corrupted pool
2.channel the corrupted pool
3. Find survivors in a limited amount of time.
Don't forget that
1. All survivors know when you are corrupted as well
2. It does not go through walls
3. Does not have high range.
Disagree, it’s busted if you force survivors to cleanse. I mean what does it say when smart survivors don’t even want a full heal to give that power?! If corrupt purge wasn’t as strong as you say, people would be using the fountains
-
I would just like to see an updated version of the kill rates now that EGC is in the game and MoM became garbage. There’s no way all the 3K turned 4K because of killer sided hatch closing hasn’t had a big effect on the numbers. I think it’s warranted with the amount of people here suggesting additional objectives to only survivors.
@Peanits any chance we could get an update on the previous data? It’s really interesting.
-
@hahmraro said:
Just a action and repair debuff while sick. Fixing Plague is a no brainer.
Along with a corrupt purge nerf. The root of the problem is that the red puke is just too damn strong. Dial it down, add a sickness penalty, now you have more people cleansing but it’s not OP.
-
@AWesley91 said:
Lol it's not spicing it up its just an extra step before boring gens to buff killers. And if dbd has to obey dbd rules they sure can't add this.
Maps with a diff escape obj instead of gens would cool though. Even if it's still exit gates but with some other actions to open them.
I tend to agree with this. If something additional is given to survivor ONLY, I think it needs to have to do with an additional escape route or something. Balance of the game is 2 kills. Since the implementation of EGC (plus the thrashing of MoM which was after the latest stats), it is pretty likely that balance is around this mark even at high rank. It’s certainly higher than that in mid to low .It doesn’t make sense therefore to just give a big overall buff to killer. Longer games requires an addition to both sides, unless killers enjoy very long queues.
Survivors won’t care about adding things to survivor gameplay if it just means they are going to die more. This is something most people don’t seem to get, but it’s the truth.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
Survivors don't find playing against Freddy fun = Rework.
Survivors don't find playing against Legion fun = Rework.
Survivors don't find a stealthy playstyle fun = More and longer chases.
Killers don't find playing against SWF fun = Nothing.
Killers don't find playing against stackable 2nd-chance perks fun = Nothing.
Killers don't find more and longer chases fun = more and longer chases.
Freddy rework wasn’t just a survivor thing, come on man. You telling me killer mains didn’t constantly ask for a rework and complain that he was F tier? Yeah, they just reworked him cause of survivors though lol
Legion rework was a united mission, the only people who didn’t want Legion changes were killers who used the exploit. Too bad. Most killers wanted Legion changed.
The thought that killers would prefer a stealth based game of hide and seek is laughable, both sides would say it’s boring. We know damn well what killers really want is to just be able to get downs faster and easier. This is just being camouflaged in a “there should be more stealth” argument.
-
@RoKrueger said:
You can gen rush and counter NOED anyway: Search for the hex totem AFTER you have done all the gens. Or do as I do when I play survivor. Wait untill another survivor gets downed and picked up, then run to an exit gate, open it and leave ;-)
This doesn’t fit the popular killer narrative of “its your fault you let NOED proc as you were too lazy to cleanse the totems.” This is said 99% of the time someone complains about NOED.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/596550#Comment_596550
As I said an emblem change only helps with those who actually care about emblems. It doesn't solve it for theose who dont care and just want kills. This is why kindred being base is a good idea.
The test showed that a survivor could run around the hook making the timer not go down leaving the others to do gens. If the survivor around the hook stopped that timer scenario then it doesn't change how it plays out right now. That on top of a survivor standing just outside the area trying to bait the killer as in a lot of cases someone is close enough to run in.
A killer should only really be able to camp two players in reality as it's 4 mins of hook plus chase time in total and gens take 80s each.
3 gens 80s still leave 40s of hook time of the first camp to start another. The killer then needs to hunt, chase, hook and camp again.
The first one camped should result in 3 gens being done easily with another two on the way. Second camp should leave enough time to finish the other two, open the door and get out. It should also allow 3 or 4 totems to be done if you pass them which most do but just ignore them.
With Noed the killer has to leave and not camp to get the benefit so then it's technically no longer camping.
The problem is people dcing, suiciding on the hook and not doing gens which all reward it and The problem of doing gens and getting out is not actually rewarded also makes some want to bait the killer away.
Punishing a strat should reward the players for doing so more and not using the strat should reward a killer for not using it.
Since camping is a strat where its viable and encouraged by the devs in some circumstances I don't think a punishment is the right way to go.
It is not easy in solo queue for 3 gens plus two on the way in the first camp. Nobody just knows the killer is camping, it takes time to figure it out, which does go back to your point about Kindred being base. I’m a fan of that. At least even if the killer does stand just outside the aura range, only one survivor would be pulled off gens.
Im just saying that test proved absolutely nothing as it wasn’t done the proper way. I’d be curious to see it done with the chaser penalty. I do think base Kindred though is the better of the two ideas, that along with finding a way to where the game can still be worthwhile for the other 3 survivors if they choose to not take the bait of the camper.
Campers being able to get NOED though is still just nonsense. You have zero time to spend on totems when any one hook the killer gets can result in death. You have to stick to gens only.
-
I always see people saying hook stall was tested and didn’t work. However, that test is not a valid counter argument at all. It’s simple, you tie it to the chaser emblem camping penalty. Did the test have that?! If another survivor is in proximity of the hook, OR the killer is in chase, it wouldn’t come into effect. That’s completely different than just a flat out “if killer is within x meters, the hook progression slows down”. As far as I know, that is what the test was? Of course that wouldn’t work. Things have changed since then.
OP brings up a valid issue that I always harp on also. “Gen blitzkrieg” counters camping, NOED counters “gen blitzkrieg”. Camping killers with NOED needs to be addressed by making a requirement for the killer to activate NOED. For example, only survivors who have been hooked are exposed to NOED. Killer wants to camp? Cool, you might only have one or nobody exposed.
Its also a problem that many survivors will feel like they have to go in for saves against campers, because doing gens and leaving will lead to little points and most likely no pip. It isn’t so much that they “fell for it”. I don’t find that to be fair.
-
You can’t force cleansing without nerfing corrupt purge, that’s a fact. Remember when people used to say that the fountains healing was OP? They were dead wrong. Not even full health is worth giving Plague that power.
The only thing they can really do, is some sort of sickness penalty such as to repair speed, but at the same time nerfing the red puke. This would allow her to use it more, but it just won’t be as ridiculously strong.
-
@StarMoral said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/591533#Comment_591533
'Forcing' is a little hyoerbolic dont ya think?
If this IS the wrong way to go about this,please think of an alternative.
If the alternative is muting it, playing at an even greater disadvantage in solo queue, what else would you call it? The game would become unplayable. Someone in this thread literally posted that it would be fair if teammates screw you over if you are the one guy who is on mute lol. Do you know how idiotic that is to say?
i do not have an answer, but what I do know is this is horrible and isn’t it.
-
@JoannaVO said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/591518#Comment_591518
But killers currently get frustrated with the fact that SWF groups use voice communications. The developers could NEVER tell the SWF players to not use voice communications like TeamSpeak and Discord. So by adding it in-game you can atleast balance around it because it's a feature that exists in the game. If you choose not to use the in-game voice communications then it's up to you for the potential loss of useful information you could have gotten over voice.
Forcing people (yes, you essentially ARE forcing them) to play with voice chat will absolutely result in the loss of players. I would not play anymore myself. This is completely the wrong way to go about it.
-
@LordGlint said:
Opting out of voicechat via a mute button is alot easier than opting INTO voicechat via getting your squad of randoms into a discord channel every game during the pre-game campfire screen. Also, if you willing choose to not communicate with your teammates, than its completely fair if you get shafted for your choice of non-communication. Currently, the game is balanced around communication not being a thing, with mechanics like the Blindness status effect being completely pointless when teammates can simply speak about their locations.
“ Also, if you willing choose to not communicate with your teammates, than its completely fair if you get shafted for your choice of non-communication”
LOL! Yes, force communication with randoms, very fair. Get used to very long killer queues cause there will be a loss of survivors. This would be the worst thing they could possibly do with the game. Also, the game is slanted in the killers favor against 4 solo players. Most people are aware of this. Let’s not pretend these games are evenly balanced cause they aren’t. So they have taken into account the existence of SWF somewhat.
-
@StarMoral said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/591193#Comment_591193
Well there would obviously be a menu to turn off VC if you want to haha
Yeah but you’re balancing the game around voice chat. So if you don’t want it and mute it, you are now at a disadvantage because of the balance changes. That’s not exactly fair. Personally I would absolutely zero interest in voice chat....I’m not the only one. It would be awful. Not to mention if you are on mute and the other 3 are not, youll probably get shafted by them somehow for being the one guy not talking.
-
Ebony mori
-
@RaginRendon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589386#Comment_589386
The killer is not powerless as the only survivor who is able to break you out of disguise mode is the one that you've taken the form of. Even after they do so that survivor gains the exposed status effect. So if that survivor chooses not to break you out, your able to get a free hit on other survivors.
Ffs man, you still aren’t getting it. I will explain it one last time. You are not getting a free hit, because through voice communication, THE SURVIVORS KNOW THAT ITS YOU IN DISGUISE the whole time. So how are we getting that free hit, when the survivor simply runs away from you as you approach trying to be incognito? Again, totally powerless as I said. They don’t even need to break you out of disguise mode, they’ll just laugh at you because they’ll know it’s the killer. So the exposed status part means nothing. Got it now?
-
@RaginRendon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589350#Comment_589350
Play smart, also your not going to be playing against swf groups 24/7 so worrying mostly about that is senseless.
Senseless? As if killer mains don’t already constantly complain about SWF, now you want a killer who is literally powerless against them. I’m sure that would go over REALLY well. I have no idea what you mean by “play smart”, I explained why there’s nothing you could do as the killer to avoid the fact you are countered by default with comms.
Im just telling you why an idea like this will never happen, if you don’t want to accept that criticism, nothing more I can say.
-
@RaginRendon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589267#Comment_589267
It would work like ghostface, the survivor who you took the form of must have you in the center of their screen for a few seconds. Also your in 3rd person view while in disguise mode so you'll have the power of vision on your side.
No, I’m not talking about that at all. I’m talking about the fact that SWF would not fall for the disguise at all, it would be useless because of communication. Everyone just says where they are , and if they see what appears to be a survivor approaching them, they will know it’s actually you in disguise and just run away. Or even easier, just have signals...such as “teabag twice when coming up to someone so we know it’s not the killer”. The disguise power itself would be completely countered. How does it help you if the survivors know that it’s you?
-
This killer would get easily countered by SWF using comms and be powerless.
-
I wouldn’t care if they left it as is, with the one condition being only survivors who have been hooked once become exposed. Killer wants to camp, forcing survivors to rush gens to counter that? Go ahead, you might only end up with one survivor exposed as a result. Sounds a lot more fair to me.
-
If survivors are ever slowed with an additional objective or just slower repair speed, then yes, BT being built in should absolutely be on the table (amongst other things). Until that happens though, I would say no. At this point, both sides are stuck addressing their issues with perks, so it wouldn’t be fair to help one side’s in the base game and not the other. That’s the issue I have with everyone who just wants the survivor side nerfed. Address both or neither. Only fair.
-
@Ark_the_Bonsai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/587197#Comment_587197
@Karl_Childers I haven't seen that movie in so long, holy #########. That'd be a cool chapter but honestly... I can't imagine King allowing it. He tends to be pretty strict about his stuff and if he caught one whiff of what happened with Freddy he wouldn't let DBD touch his stuff with a 100 foot pole. If they can pull it off I'd be all for it though! that was a fantastic story and a pretty good movie.
I love that movie! I never thought about it being in the game till you mentioned a criminal survivor. You are right though, it would never happen in a million years, but ######### so much potential. In my dream world, we could have Ben Richards (could you imagine getting Arnold to voice his scream lmao), and a killer like Sub zero with the map being a huge ice rink lol. Buzzsaw would obviously be redundant with his chainsaw, but even though I don’t like him Dynamo would be something different with his electricity thing.
please for the love of god BHVR, allow my dreams to come true!
-
So kinda like the movie The Running Man....disregarding the fact Ben Richards was actually innocent and was framed. I like it.
And on that note.... I now officially want a The Running Man chapter lol.
-
@Seanzu said:
This is honestly terrible.
this is just "I'll 4K every game"
Increasing gen time? Slowing survivors if they're injured when killers are already faster? Reducing pallets? increasing gens completed by 1? Flashlights standard but only blind killer? What's the point, if you get blinded, stand still, turn around and then the flashlight is worthless.
Your whole idea of "stealth" but then slowing survivors down so much they wouldn't be able to get around a corner and juke is hilarious.
I'm not usually this harsh on ideas but this is literally somebody wanting to 4K every game and make survivor suffer.
Have to agree. “Make the game more scary” here basically can be translated into “killers should get 3-4 kills in 90% of games”. I would venture to guess that a lot of people here probably think that should be reality.
This would result in 2 hour killer queues. The game is never going to become scary again once anyone puts in a small amount of time. Not to mention, a lot of people are just never going to feel fear in a game where the killer is controlled by another player. It becomes competitive, not scary, no matter what. So if the survivors are constantly on the losing end, they just won’t play that side anymore, and if they don’t like being the killer....they won’t play the game anymore.
-
So slug them down and continue after the other survivor? You gained pressure for free if they are throwing themselves at you. That’s one on the ground, one has to go heal them, and you are chasing another. How is this a problem? Choosing to pick them up is on you.
-
I agree with this entire list.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/583872#Comment_583872
To play devil's advocate, that would make the perk more effective against the killers who leave the hook and less effective against the killer who camp and tunnel people off the hook. It wouldn't be the type of thing you would want to encourage.
This is very true.
The perk in its current state though, makes no sense and is useless. At the very least, it should also protect against instadowns (applies to ANY dying state hit like they originally were putting in the PTB) and the aura part should be removed.
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/580769#Comment_580769
Well, in part if the killer is say for example leather face in the basement. You have 3 minutes to get the gens done and totems. You can do that simply quite quickly. Totems can be stealthy taken out while the killer patrols looking for someone. If totems are broken before someone is found the time the match lasted does not effect you. Rushing to gens does. However, a killer playing fair and a killer camping both get rushed. Again the only time a camping killer wins is if the survivors play into it.
What I am saying though is I don’t necessarily care that much if the fair, but struggling, killer gets NOED. Expecting 3 survivors to cleanse dull totems while a killer is camping is just nonsense, sorry. So if you were on the hook against a facecamper, and the others were running around the map looking for totems, you’d be good with that and not complaining that they are idiots? I find that hard to believe. Every second not on a gen against that basement Leatherface is a win for him. They should make a requirement that has to do the chaser penalty or something....you get penalized for camping, you can’t get NOED. I don’t know, just something.
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/580676#Comment_580676
@Karl_Childers Killers are suppose to keep survivors pressured. Multiple survivors can work on multiple generators all around the map. Killers can only for the most part pressure one survivor at a time. Therefore gen rushing does not counter camping it counters killers pressure. See the problem there? A perk like PGTW shouldn't be needed when the mechanic itself is weak. The only one at the core that is under pressure is the killer. Unless you are top tier killers ie Nurse/Spirit/Billy. That or you have potato teammates that do not know how this game works.
I’m not following how anything you said counters my argument? Are you disagreeing? When anyone complains about camping, literally 99% of people, including killer mains, will respond “just do gens”...aka rush the main objective to punish them. If you can’t do the counter to NOED because the killer is playing in a brain dead manner that forces you to genrush, then the killer shouldn’t be able to get it. Simple. Or do you believe survivors should cleanse dull totems while the killer is camping?!
-
NOED just needs some type of requirement on the killer’s end. It really makes no sense that a camper should be able to get it to proc. People say cleansing totems is the counter to NOED, but rushing gens is the counter to camping. Do we not see the issue here?!
-
At least for me, it is impossible to feel scared in a game knowing you are against another players who’s controlling the killer. It’s just a totally different mindset, as opposed to playing like Resident Evil or Outlast. I can get pretty scared in those types of horror games. The mindset in DBD though is more competitive since you’re against an actual person, it’s just not the same at all. There’s nothing they could do in this game to make me feel actual horror.
-
@Captain_Doomsday said:
Did they have toolboxes? Toolboxes speed up gens and IMO that's bad design, even compared to the Sabojake era.
I think toolboxes should probably do everything but speed up gens. Make the great zone wider to combat ruin, maybe an add on that allows you to miss one or two before blowing up, or even slow the skill check down a bit...stuff like that.
However as for this topic, I think it’s pretty obvious OP is spewing exaggerated BS in order to push a “nerf survivors” agenda. Five games in a row where 3 gens pop before FINDING a survivor? Come on now, let’s make it a little more believable. How bad do you have to be for that to happen, it’s nonsense.