Madjura
Madjura
About
- Username
- Madjura
- Joined
- Visits
- 15,299
- Last Active
Comments
-
There are zero advantages that a battle pass offers other the already established systems
The free stuff can be given out for free without any intermediary steps, or they can be attached to events like they have been in the past
Everything else can be sold in the store for money
If the pass makes less money than selling stuff in the store then it was a waste of development time
If it makes more money then selling stuff in the store would then that means people are being suckered into spending money on something they wouldn't have spent money on (because otherwise they would have bought it from the store)
From a customer perspective there is absolutely no reason to approve of such a system
-
It's incredible how none of the battle pass supporters are able to come up with an argument as to why it is superior over other distribution methods
The arguments:
- "I just want free stuff" well guess what, you could have free garbage even without a battle pass that exploits other people! There is absolutely no reason why the devs can't just give out the free items from the free battle pass without the battle pass
- "It's not the dev's responsibility to make sure children and mentally unhealthy people aren't exploited!" by the same logic they could sell guns with the Dbd logo in the store and encourage people to use the guns to kill, after all it's not their fault if some unstable person shoots someone
I could understand if the devs defended this bullshit because they are actually getting something out of this predatory bullshit ($$$) but none of the random people defending it are getting jackshit out of it other than free garbage that could be distributed to them even without exploiting other people
Absolutely disgusting
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/492770#Comment_492770
Sorry but this sounds like a "you" problem, not the devs problem. I welcome getting stuff for free. If you fear missing out that much then you need to seek professional help, because whether it's DBD or gambling or cocaine something will catch you.
If you only care about free stuff then that is no reason to like the battle pass as a whole, the free items could be given away for free without the paid component
-
@Angelicus23 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/491697#Comment_491697
Currently, the best comment on this post
Agreed. If the forums had something like Reddit Gold / Platinum (whatever it's called now) I would gild it
Everyone who thinks battle passes are fine:
What advantage(s) does a battle pass have over the already established distribution methods?
As outlined in this thread by multiple people now they have a huge issue with people being manipulated to play more than they normally would, which especially mentally unhealthy people (addiction) and minors will fall prey to. Therefore there should be (a) severe advantage(s) that a battle pass has over other system that do not have these issues to mitigate them. What are they?
-
@legion_main said:
So you think spending 10-20 dollars is going to absolutely ¨ruin¨ someones life?
I dont see any downsides to it other than people crying about it being to similar to fortnite and in retrospect these two games have nothing in common
Also I doubt they are going to call it a battlepass anyways
See this post for the general problems: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/490323/#Comment_490323
It doesn't matter how much it costs, it's still bullshit. Even if it was free with exclusive cosmetics that are only available for a limited time it be problematic because people will feel forced to play or they lose out
The name is completely irrelevant, what matters are the mechanics
-
@PatBrutal said:
Hello everyone!
Thank you all for your feedback, I have sent your concerns to the localization team!
Thanks!
Have them take a look at DeepL: https://www.deepl.com/translator
It's a very high quality translation tool that produces near-human levels of quality
-
@legion_main said:
@Madjura They shouldn´t have to limit what they want to put in the game just because of addicts
Like lasombra said an addict will just move on to a new game anyways its not like they are just gonna stop their addiction if dbd doesent have a battle pass
Like do you even think about these things? The garbage you spout literally makes no sense
No they legally don't have to but morally they absolutely should when superior options (normal event, store) are available
A battle pass has exactly zero advantage for regular players over other acquisition methods. And likewise the other methods have zero downsides over the battle pass. However for some players the battle pass mechanic has very severe downsides, so there is no good reason to have such a mechanic in the game
Someone who is addicted moving to other games that have predatory bullshit mechanics is still no reason to add the same predatory bullshit mechanics to the game because at the end of the day you are still exploiting vulnerable people and that is still absolutely disgusting
-
@lasombra1979 said:
My opinion about battle passes is, no big deal. If you want to pay for it, go for it. If you broke like me, do not.
As for the argument about minors it holds little weight. First off, it is the responsibility of the parent, not the game developer to monitor what their child is doing and if they spend money in game. As a parent, I have had to swallow that pill of my kid ordering a PPV movie, or buying stuff in Candy Crush or Angry Birds. I learned the lesson to put in parental locks. They have those available as well on consoles (cannot say for certain about Steam, havent used it years).
Lastly, those with game addictions, my heart goes out to anyone fighting an addiction, I been done that road. That said, the addition or non addition of a battle pass will change much in terms of those playing this game while facing this addiction. If it is not this game, they will just go to another. An addict will keep looking for the next fix, where ever it comes. It is up to the addict to overcome the addiction. This comes from personal experience.
By the same logic you could sell alcohol to a recovering alcoholic because if you don't sell it to them, someone else will
There are ways to give cosmetics out to people. Even ways that let the devs earn money. Those ways are not (as) predatory and bullshit as a battle pass would be. In absolutely no way is a battle pass superior for an average players than those alternatives, however those alternatives are much better for mentally unhealthy individuals and minor. Therefore there is no excuse not to use those alternative channels without those severe issues
-
@legion_main said:
@Madjura so what about other things like fortnite? they have a battle pass and I believe they were among the first people to come up with it.
People are addicted to cigarettes but are they outlawed? Are the people in the tobacco industry doing it purely for money? of course
People are addicted to alcohol but are they outlawed?
Just because BHVR decides to put a ¨battlepass¨ in their game doesent mean they are bad people they are just trying to gain more revenue to help their company improve the quality of their games I mean jesus christ its not like the people at BHVR are hitler
Just because other games have bullshit systems doesn't mean they are okay
Cigarettes are regulated (in Europe, I don't know about anywhere else). And again, just because bullshit exists somewhere else doesn't validate such garbage in Dbd. Same for alcohol
-
@BBQnDemogorgon said:
@Madjura Your argument is as logical to me as if you had said something like the devs should never have added a clown because some people are irrationally afraid of clowns.
Mental illness is their own personal issue they have to deal with not the worlds/game devs.
People who are afraid of clowns can quit the game. Problem solved, no one is being exploited
People with addiction problems are encouraged to spend even more times in the game which is essentially the exact opposite result
And no mental illness is not something you can just ignore and then add mechanics to the game that prey on people suffering from it because you didn't literally cause their issues
By the same logic you could open a bar next to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting place "Well it's not MY fault those people suffering from addiction are coming here, I am not literally forcing them to come in!". It's more or less the same principle, it might not be illegal but it sure as ######### as morally wrong and exploitative
-
@legion_main said:
@Madjura You are literally spouting nonsense game developers should ONLY worry about developing their game and making money they should not be concerned about what mentally unstable person just happens to play their game
Just because the age limit is not legally binding doesent mean kids shouldn´t be playing this game
Video game addiction is not some abstract, extremely rare disorder, it is very common. As a developer you absolutely have a moral obligation to consider what adverse effects your product can have on people that already have an addiction, maybe not legally, not yet, but if you put profits above mental health issues are you a horrible human being
If you are developing anything that other people have contact with or use you are very much responsible for any damages your product causes, physically and mentally, morally and in many cases legally. Video games are "lucky" to be largely ignored by lawmakers for now so they can get away with a lot of bullshit but that doesn't mean that it's okay or will stay that way
-
@legion_main said:
@Madjura Like I said its not the devs fault for what happens to other people as soon as they accept the terms of service they are no longer inclined to whatever happens to the players and the devs shouldn´t have to either they should be able to develop their games and if they want to add a way to
Minorities shouldn´t be playing a mature rated game anyways
You can't put whatever you want into the game and then say "Well you accepted the terms of service so it's not our fault that we exposed you to predatory mechanics that ruined your life"
There is no reason to add a battle pass
The free stuff can be given out for free. Or be attached to an event system like in the past
Everything else can be sold in the store
Everyone can still access all of the content that a pass would offer except now mentally unwell people and minors are no longer being exploited
Adding a system to the game with such severe downsides when reasonable alternatives exist is absolutely disgusting
-
@BBQnDemogorgon said:
@Nikkiwhat It's not predatory to me if i enjoy what i bought 🤷♂️ i like battle passes
If you are mentally healthy then the system is perfectly fine. However there are many people that are NOT mentally healthy, some of which most likely happen to be playing this very game. It's not okay to expose them to bullshit mechanics that they are vulnerable to when there is absolutely no good reason other than $$$ to do so
-
@BBQnDemogorgon said:
@Madjura Mental health is not a concern for game developers and shouldn't be.
Minors? This is a mature rated game. They're breaking rules by even playing it in the first place so its not the devs fault.
What a disgusting attitude
Age ratings are not legally binding
If you put profits above very serious real life issues that people could experience because of your bullshit monetization system you can go ######### yourself
I mean jesus ######### christ "Mental health is not a concern for game developers" my ass, are you a literal physical manifestation of corporate greed?
-
@legion_main said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/490331#Comment_490331
The same thing can be said about cosmetics in the store right? you see people with these cool new skins that you don´t have so you think about buying it no?
The store items are not available for only a limited time so there is less incentive to buy them immediately because you can always get them later. With battle passes that is not the case
-
@Nikkiwhat said:
So many gullible individuals in here, not realizing how predatory Battle-Passes are designed to be. This game has enough of a grind in place. If you think a BPs is gonna just shower you with freebies and not be designed for more egregious tactics to entice players to give up even more money for crap, than you are what is wrong with the gaming industry.
This isn't a free to play game at all and this has no place in a game that's already as grindy as DBD is AND has plentiful microtransactions already in with cosmetics and Chapter characters.
All of this
-
@legion_main said:
@Madjura You have no valid argument because
A) Its not the Devs problem what you do they are not responsible for whatever happens to you
B) You don´t HAVE to buy the pass it is just merely an alternate way to get in game rewards
so other than that why exactly is it bad?
If your bullshit system preys on people with mental health issues (addiction) and minors (who not necessarily know better) then yes it is absolutely the devs fault if those people fall for their predatory system that has negative effects on those people
-
@xChrisx said:
I want it. You are not forced to spend money on it.
We can get free stuff.
And the devs can get money from who decide to support them.
If you want to support the devs you can buy official merchandise from the store. Or cosmetics. If for some reason you already have all the cosmetics you have
a serious problemalready supported the devs enough. You can always buy shards even if you don't spend them to support the devsYou don't get free stuff. You get random garbage that no one wants in the free version to make you look at the superior, paid version and make you see which objectively better items you could have gotten if you had bought the pass, to make you change your decision to not buy the pass in the first place so they can get your money
-
@CaptainCastle said:
People talking about getting stuff for free are being pretty baselessly optimistic lol
Battle passes don't give out things for free because the devs are being nice. They give out things for free to show you what other, superior items you could have if you had spent money on the battle pass
-
@TheGameZpro3 said:
I NEVER once understood the hate. Seriously, can anyone give me a reason other than "We don't want this game to be like Fortnite?"
It literally gives you things FOR FREE, if you don't want to pay for premium pass. And if you pay for premium pass, you're getting a great deal! As a poor gamer, I'm still hyped for the fact this could get in the game.
It's a bullshit mechanic designed to keep people playing more than they normally would to grind out the pass
The money version is intended to invoke a sense of urgency in the players to incentivize them to spend money on the pass, even if they normally spend very little or nothing on other cosmetics, by making it limited for a certain period of time. And once players have bought it they again are pressured to play more than they normally would because the bought pass is a waste of money if you don't grind it out to full
This is problematic because game addiction is a real thing and the pass is rewarding people who might already be spending an unhealthy amount of time in the game. Add to that that video games are very popular among minors and you get a predatory bullshit system
Either the devs make enough money and don't need to include a battle pass system, in which case they are greedy bastards
Or they don't make enough money, in which case they should GIT GUD and find a way to monetize their game without predatory bullshit mechanics
-
@drunky26 said:
They're teasing us :D
Yes, there is no way this wasn't intentionally included
-
Corrupt purge works quite well and is effectively a better huntress, the only problem is it's down to the SURVIVORS if they want you to have this power or not.
Survivors not only control whether and when you get it, but also which pool they use
If they use a pool that's on the opposite side of the map where all generators are already done then it's generally a bad idea to even go there
-
No
It's a legitimate strategy, just run No Mither if it bothers you so much
-
@MegaWaffle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/484347#Comment_484347
Actually with dedicated servers they will be able to discern the difference (to an extent) between internet issue DC and intentional. I say to an extent because this can also get abused somewhat easily, but will help provide a "buffer" should they implement punishments based on X amount of DCs.
They can already detect when someone presses the "Leave Game" button
They will not be able to tell the difference between a crash (probably, I don't know how the "Send a crash report window" is generated, maybe it's detectable), someone killing the game with the task manager or someone pulling the plug / someone's internet dying
Dedicated servers don't matter for that
-
@Karltastisk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/484338#Comment_484338
I hope they put in place like small soft punishments for every single dc like 5 minutes until you can play again and then maybe 10 then 20 and so on.
They should already be able to do that even without dedicated servers
-
@FireHazard said:
@Karltastisk For someone like me who has bad connection and low internet speeds because of where I live, I only really care for the connections being fixed from this.
As people like me have this issue but want a fair and fun match. Sometimes however, because of this connection lag can cause issues but not all the time.
If anything dedicated servers will make your issues a lot worse unless you live directly next to a data center, and even then your connection could still die. Dedicated servers won't fix garbage internet
-
@MegaWaffle said:
I know they will be able to change how they implement punishments for DC with the new dedicated servers but I'm not sure how soon we will see results as this issue has ballooned to epic proportions.
But what can they change from the current system? There's not really anything stricter than a ban that could be implemented. And lower punishments seem very counterproductive so that seems unlikely too
-
Dedicated servers should not really matter much for punishing disconnects. The devs claim to have a system in place that automatically bans anyone who disconnects in more than a certain percentage of games. From that we can conclude:
- the devs can detect disconnects
- the devs can ban people who disconnect too frequently
I find it very weird that they specifically mentioned that dedicated servers will give them greater control because I can see no way dedicated servers will allow them to do something that they couldn't do with the current system
-
Trap timers should activate as soon as a survivor starts trying to remove the trap
There should be a special box behind the exit gates that always removes the trap
Leaving or attempting to leave with a trap should kill again
There, fixed
-
@Perelie said:
How do you think killers have felt the past three years? Every match had survivors tbagging the exit gates or crouching around the map for as long as they please, with the killer having no means to do anything until the survivors decided it was enough.
At least for you, you only have to wait 3 minutes. Try being stuffed around for half an hour..
Irrelevant
The situation OP describes is bullshit and in no way validated by other bullshit that was possible in the past
-
@Dreamnomad said:
It's allowed. There really isn't anything to report. You would either bleed out or the ECG would kill you. The killer isn't doing anything against the rules like holding the game hostage. Is it good sportsmanship? No. Is it bannable? No.
"Unsportsmanlike" is one of the report reasons. One could argue that doing what OP describes falls under it
On the other hand there are legitimate reasons to let a survivor bleed out / die from the timer such as DS and Flip Flop
There should probably just be a system where once the timer is active and all remaining survivors are downed they are all instantly killed
-
He gets a free hit? HAG LITERALLY gets a free hit when her trap is set off. Teleport, move forward for about a quarter of a second, and smack.
For the majority of people on the forums not drowning themself in the shower by accident is an intellectual accomplishment on par with winning a nobel prize for everyone else
In less complicated terms:
You = correct
People complaining about legion = wrong
Majority of people = dum dum != you
-
@Niitosky said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/483204#Comment_483204
it is not my screen, it comes from the video of The King, and I doubt that the king will publish something that is not true in his video
Considering that instead of linking the image directly here on the forums you instead linked to a post on a subreddit where you are a moderator and assigned your own post a "legit" tag it's pretty obvious that you are bullshitting. I have no idea who "The King" is supposed to be, so I have investigated further and found someone who is more trustworthy than whoever that is supposed to be: Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama, what do you have to do say about Niitosky's posts?
Thank you Mr. Obama.
-
Almost certainly not
If the devs had access to save data on PS4 (they might, I don't know) then that would still involve messing with two save files (your account and then her new account). If they can't access the save files then your only hope would be Sony who will probably not get involved in this
Your best option is to open a support ticket and ask there, that's more likely to get an answer from someone who can tell you for sure whether it's possible or not: https://support.deadbydaylight.com/hc/en-us
-
@Blueberry said:
This doesn't seem legit at all. I want some actual evidence.
Check the latest threads by OP. They are ALL garbage like this. The link goes to a subreddit where OP is a moderator and has given their own post the "legit" tag. And apparently OP doesn't even know how to use printscreen
-
- Did you seriously take a photo of your screen instead of using printscreen?
- Your """proof""" is the title of a clip. To my knowledge whoever creates the clip can name it whatever they want
- I have superior proof, a video, from the Twitch channel, which proves that you are lying and should feel bad. See the picture
-
@pootis_Bear said:
@Akarate_Dolphin I only have hope because they did it with fortnite
Fortnite is MUCH bigger than Dbd and the only reason they caved was $$$
-
I think this would be cool
As far as I know Sony dislikes crossplay
Other than that crossplay should be possible in all gamemodes
-
You know the flood from the bible, the one with Noah's ark?
That's actually a true story from an alternate universe where Mettle Of Man was not changed. The flood was actually caused by the tears of babies who couldn't deal with that garbage perk
So yes, the change is necessary, but only to save us all from drowning in a flood of tears
-
@Volfawott said:
1) Legion got nerfed but honestly I like them better now
2) Remember me got nerfed
3) Amanda that was about to be straight up gutted but they Backtrack a little and only give her a couple of stomach stabs.
4) If you want to take a trip down memory lane do you remember the time where they implemented a feature that allows you to blind the killer at any stage during the pickup animation to get the save this was done intentionally.
5) freddy enough said
6) Myers perks got gutted anywhere only fixed last year
7) It took them how long to actually deal with defensive strike
These are of the top of my head if you really want me to be super anal about it I could go on I could draft you an essay.
Survivors have been really strong and dominating for a long time if you want to balance that out you're going to have to make sure their are lot less dominating.
You forgot infinites, which were in the game for a long time (long relative for how absolutely bullshit and unfun they were)
And never forget: "Infinites are a mindgame!"
-
@Boss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/482872#Comment_482872
My game crashed 3 times on 1 day once.
Didn't get banned.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i do believe they stated to not ban for crashes anyway.
If crashes don't count as disconnects then there is no reason to not amp up the disconnect threshold. And lowering it in the first place would have been an awful move.
Regardless the post I linked says that the reason it was relaxed is "because too many players were experiencing crashes and loading issues and [they] didn’t want to punish players for issues caused by the game." (https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/63559/developer-update-may-2019#latest) which implies that disconnects and crashes do (or did, until recently) count.
Regarding your crashes: We don't know what the percentage is. We don't know what time period it looks at. It's possible you are evading a ban because you have many more games where you didn't crash or disconnect. For obvious reason it would be bullshit if you got banned for crashes that are out of your control but it seems like it's a definitive possibility to get banned for crashes
-
@CutestMuffin said:
Set an in-game timer perhaps?
Should a player disconnect, only track it for penalising if the player queues up for another game/relaunches Dead By Daylight within the time frame. IRL situations often take time. A quick reboot of your game takes seconds or a couple of minutes depending on your machine.
This is a quick idea that I pulled out If my rear but I would love to hear your thoughts on this
Instead of tracking the time it takes the player to start a new game they could just temporarily ban the player, for an hour or so. If you have a legitimate reason to disconnect being locked out for an hour or whatever is chosen shouldn't affect you
The technology required for this is essentially what is needed for your idea
-
@[Deleted User] said:
By their logic, most (most is not "all") of the issues are fixed.
Whether it's the right call to change it back or not is debatable. This seems to be a half step change.
But that's what I don't understand: They think the issues are fixed enough to get rid of the more lenient ban percentage. Someone had to go and set the value back to normal. If you are already at the point where you are changing the value then you might as well set it to something more strict instead of just back to normal since they also acknowledged that disconnects are a problem. I see no logic behind setting the value back to what it was previously.
-
I am going to bump this because I still see no way that setting the percentage back to normal is the right call. Either the issues are fixed, in which case it's safe to make the percentage a lot more strict. Or, as Sythalin says, the issues are not fixed, then reverting it back to the default value is also dumb because innocent players like Sythalin are going to get ######### over for something they have no control over.
-
@ClogWench said:
You already get less BP from an egc kill. Unless you mean the killer gets 0 bloodpoints total in which case that's a stupid idea
A monumentally stupid idea
I think OP is referring to killers intentionally not ending chases to get more Hunting category bloodpoints: running after survivors (that in turn are just gonna run around the same pallet / vault over and over) but not attacking to not give the survivors the movement speed boost they get when you hit them. OP wants killers to not get bloodpoints for the entire duration that the endgame timer is active (= EGC) to encourage ending the game faster. This is obviously a bad idea which becomes even worse when you consider that survivors will then just extend the game as long as possible to drag out the amount of time that the killer doesn't get any points for
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/480060#Comment_480060
I was also told many times that we wouldn't be changing Mettle of Man, but we're currently working on changing that as well. We're not here to twiddle our mustaches and laugh nefariously, we are actually taking feedback and trying our best to make good changes.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/480061#Comment_480061
One of the biggest differences is the amount of counterplay those perks you listed have. When a perk is passive, it's okay for it to be hard countered by another perk. You gain a benefit and a perk on the other side takes it away. To use Spies from the Shadows and Calm Spirit as an example, the killer gains information on all survivors, and that particular survivor counters it with Calm Spirit. Neither side is earning the benefits, they're always active all the time. It's like a game of rock paper scissors.
When you have a perk that has a requirement, that's when it starts to get a bit more tricky. To go back to the decisive strike example, it's already pretty situational and very easy for the killer to play around it and avoid it completely. Having a perk hard counter it on top of that would be overkill.
>To use Spies from the Shadows and Calm Spirit as an example, the killer gains information on all survivors, and that particular survivor counters it with Calm Spirit. Neither side is earning the benefits, they're always active all the time. It's like a game of rock paper scissors.
I can see the logic here but I have to disagree with the design philosophy behind it. Spies From The Shadows (SFTS) as I understand it does literally nothing if all survivors have Calm Spirit (I am not 100% sure whether survivors still trigger crows while sprinting when they have it but the way the perk is worded they don't). Crows are almost, emphasis on almost, useless without SFTF but a killer can still see them fly away even without SFTS. Survivors still get a benefit (albeit minor) while the killer is essentially losing a perk.
Same for Knock Out, Knock Out does literally nothing if all survivors have Empathy. But Empathy does not only render Knock Out completely useless if everyone has it, it has uses outside of it. To use your Rock-Paper-Scissors analogy, it's as if in the case of a draw (all survivors run a perk that counters a killer perk) one side gets half a win towards a best of five. Survivors can only win (their perks always do something, even if it's minor) while killer can only win (perk is not countered completely) or lose (perk is countered, the draw situation is a minor win for survivors).
Stridor is the exception of the three because it always has an effect (louder regular breathing).
-
@Peanits said:
It's a couple different reasons.
- The wording confused people. Many people think of "75% increased recovery" as "stuns only last 25% of the normal time". This is not the case. Instead of being stun time * (1 - 0.75), it's actually stun time / 1.75. Your stun is only reduced by about 43% when you increase the recovery speed by 75%. With stuns just being half as long, it's much simpler. 2 seconds becomes 1 seconds, bing bang boom, everyone understands.
- The pallet stun durations are actually going to be about 0.15 seconds shorter.
- This way we can re-evaluate stun perks and better balance their stun times. Currently we need to make sure that anything affected by enduring lasts long enough that it doesn't render enduring completely useless. Take a look at DS, for example. It was a 4 seconds stun, where the survivor was locked into the animation for one second. This leaves you with only ~1.28 seconds to run if the killer is using DS. As a result, the stun time was raised to 5 seconds, giving you ~1.85 seconds to run. With that in mind, we could potentially lower it back down to 4 seconds (or even 3 seconds) after this change, making it more consistent whether or not you're using enduring.
It basically allows us better control over balancing stun perks so you're not forced to run enduring just to counter them.
>3. [...] Currently we need to make sure that anything affected by enduring lasts long enough that it doesn't render enduring completely useless.
Calm Spirit renders Spies From The Shadows useless
Iron WIll renders Stridor mostly useless
Aftercare, Empathy, playing SWF renders Knock Out useless
Why is Enduring being prioritized over those perks? Even if the stun times were shorter and Enduring was worse as a result of that then Enduring would still work on pallets which are in every game.
-
Perks that stun currently:
- DS
- Head On
-
I think this is literally the first time I have seen someone reference some outside source (such as a livestream) and actually provide a link that is relevant for the discussion and explains where the argument comes from
I would like to nominate this thread for best thread
-
Dead By Daylight now renamed to Hugs By Daylight
Blood replaced with candy
Survivor models replaced with pinatas
Goty 2019