Monlyth
Monlyth
About
- Username
- Monlyth
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,587
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303049#Comment_3303049
I never said comebacks were unique to DBD, I said that it has an inherent advantage to either side by design which means that it is never supposed to be an even playing field. That is something that games purposely avoid when trying to be competitive, and the entire purpose behind concepts like balance. Even then, You're not allowed to quit matches early in Street Fighter because you're playing Zangief vs Guile. You are expected to play out matches regardless of advantage.
Also you're once again focusing on win/loss as the only purpose of playing games, when most people play games to actually play them. If you can't understand a concept that simple nobody is going to be able to help you understand this situation, so there is no point discussing it.
Street Fighter seems to mainly apply DC penalties because the game gives you the benefit of the doubt on why you disconnected, and doesn't count it as a loss. If leaving a match counted as a defeat, I doubt people would be anywhere near as upset over rage-quitting.
You demand that players put their opponents' fun before their own, that they keep playing even when they're not having fun, and you have the nerve to accuse ME of not understanding the purpose of games? Silly me for thinking the main goal of playing a videogame should be that you have a good time. No, the Killer is purely here for the Survivors' entertainment. Should have read up more on the Survivors' Rulebook for Killers.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303001#Comment_3303001
I already pointed out that is a false equivalence. Don't try to dress an argument up to attack it. This an asymmetrical game that is designed specifically to have a shifting power dynamic where the advantage changes, by design, from one side to another. By design there will always be points where one side has an advantage over the other. There is also never a "lone barracks in a corner of the map" scenario for the killer especially, they are never that declawed even by the worst of skill matchups due to multiple mechanics that are built into this game.
Not only that, but there is a way to forfeit the game, it just carries a penalty for being unwilling to play the rest of it out. You don't even need to pull the plug on your internet or anything that drastic, its a literal button ingame. It carries a penalty because you are taking back your agreement to play out a game to its conclusion, so your disruptiveness is punished accordingly.
Do you know why the "team" stipulation keeps coming up? Because quitting ruins the game for your team. Quitting also ruins the game for your opponent, which have consumables on both sides (addons, offerings) which get used up regardless of how the match plays out. Thats on top of the most basic of considerations that many people want to actually play matches more than they care about winning, which I honestly don't understand how or why that seems to be a foreign concept to some people.
Edit: Also since you hyperbolized adding things like tennis and air hockey, yes, even 1v1 games have disconnect penalties. Fighting games especially have been cracking down hard on them in more recent years, for the same reasons I have provided.
And I already pointed out that it is NOT a false equivalence. Comebacks are not unique to Dead by Daylight, not in the slightest.
I never agreed to play out a game to its conclusion. The warning itself doesn't say anything about ruining the game for other people, it just says "Leaving a match counts as a defeat". And sometimes, you know what? That's perfectly acceptable to me.
And I don't understand why the concept of mutual consent is so foreign to people in this game. Games should only go on so long as both sides consent to keep playing. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason. I have no right to demand that my opponent keep playing when they don't want to anymore. And nor do you.
Really? Well, that's dumb. Unless disconnecting doesn't count as a defeat in those games for some unfathomable reason, there's no real reason to get upset about it if your opponent decides to leave.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302972#Comment_3302972
Yes, because you leaving the match ruins the match for the other players still in it. Why do you think there is a penalty on quitting matches in the first place?
And yes, I do have a pretty good idea. That doesn't make it any less accurate, and it is a very well known issue with this game especially. Many games even have "ragequit hell" matchmaking where people who act like that get separated from people who play their matches out and only get matched with each other instead.
So everyone who has ever conceded a match of StarCraft, Hearthstone, Magic the Gathering, Yu-gi-oh, Legends of Runeterra, Battletech, Darkest Dungeon (Butcher's Circus), World of Warcraft (Duels), XCOM multiplayer, Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Battlesector, Dawn of War, Tennis, Golf, Air hockey... any game or sport where you have no teammates, was toxic and entitled for doing so? Even when nobody involved got upset over it?
And how about everyone who ever unanimously agreed to surrender in League of Legends or CS:GO?
Yeah, I think know the games you're talking about with leaver queues. And notably, they're TEAM games. Where you actually have teammates who will likely lose if you leave.
Everybody benefits from having the option to concede a match in a non-team game. It is mutually beneficial for the loser who just wants to move on to the next match, and for their opponents who immediately win the game. If winning is not enough for you, if you think players should be obligated to put their opponents' fun before their own, THAT is peak entitlement.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302964#Comment_3302964
And yet the soulsborne games seem to have done quite well, last i checked. Frustration leading to catharsis is a part of the concept of delayed gratification, which is an important part of competition. I find it ironic you called anyone entitled earlier when having a stance like this.
So let me get this straight: Conceding a match because you're not having fun and don't want to keep playing that match is entitled and toxic? Not putting your opponents' fun before your own is entitled and toxic?
Do you have the slightest idea how many people you just called entitled and toxic?
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302960#Comment_3302960
Games are supposed to be about the journey, not the destination.
Except when you're not having fun on the journey anymore and would like to move on to the next one, apparently.
-
@kisfenkin said:
You queued up, so that's what you are agreeing to. If you don't want to play the full match don't start the game. This is how it works here and I, for one, think the rules should be more strict, not less. I feel that if anyone DCs the negative pip should be removed for everyone. That person should start at a one hour DC timer, then a one day timer, then a one week timer, then a one month timer, and then a one year timer for each offense and it should take 30 days of no DCs to reduce it by only one offense.
If you DC you are wasting other people's time, not just your own. Either stop doing that or go away. Also, if the killer DCing just gave the survivors their 'win' that doesn't account for everything else those survivors needed to do in that match. They could have a daily ritual, a tome challenge, a trophy/achievement that they are working on and had already put some of the work into these things but you selfishly want to leave...
DCing is the exact opposite of wasting other people's time. It turns a 7-10-minute escape attempt into as little as 2-3, if that.
The Killer is not obligated to help Survivors finish archives, or dailies, or anything else. If they were, then where's the penalty for downing a Survivor when they're trying to pick up a glyph?
-
@HectorBrando said:
You can concede in DBD as Killer, you can go to the door and stay there until all gens get done and open it to force EGC, it usually takes around 2 minutes if you actually played the game and they had already some gens done.
So where's the harm in cutting out the middleman and just giving the survivors the win from the start, instead of forcing the Killer to sit and wait while the Survivors play with the gens?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302936#Comment_3302936
It's not according to one specific source, it's according to the line of logic that I just laid out, in the message that you just quoted.
Those other games aren't objectively correct, and neither is any game that does have a DC penalty. You do actually have to back up your arguments with reasoning.
I already did. You have no teammates who need your help in order to win. If you have the option to concede, you don't have to play out a match that you're not enjoying anymore, and your opponents get a quick and easy win. Everybody's happy.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302930#Comment_3302930
I have justified mine. It's good sportsmanship to play matches out, and bad sportsmanship to end them early outside of guaranteed loss scenarios. This is the case because players queue up to actually play the game, not to simply see the ending screen. Thus, DBD should have a DC penalty, to penalise poor sportsmanship and to promote actually, y'know, playing the game.
Good sportsmanship/bad sportsmanship according to whom? What gives you the right to arbitrate what is and isn't good sportsmanship, especially given how many other games would wholeheartedly disagree?
-
@EntitySpawn said:
All multiplayer games have a DC penalty...
DBD definitely needs it because this community is so more entitled it's stupid. Only game I can play and people will just DC over stupid stuff.
If you massively wanna give up so bad as killer go stand in a corner and face the wall, though I'm not quite sure why people want to give up as either side so easy... you can learn alot in from those matches even if it's just to practice something different/new.
Multiplayer games need DC penalties, even in asymmetrical ones.
I just listed several that don't. Because you don't have any teammates in those games.
Indeed, the DbD community is incredibly entitled. Especially Survivors who think they're entitled to prolong the match and torment the Killer for as long as they like.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302917#Comment_3302917
I'm really not seeing how this translates to it being unfair to expect you to finish out a match. It's not like stalling a game out forever in your StarCraft analogy because the game isn't just lost and playing it out isn't going through the motions, and even if card games let you concede at any time... so what? I don't get how that's relevant to the central argument at all.
"Other games let you do it" is only compelling rhetoric if you can back it up with some kind of design reason, or other such argument. Why should DBD let you rob four other players of their chance to play the match out, when the match is not meaningfully over or decided?
Why do I have to justify my position? Justify yours. If you had your way, people would have to be chained to the table at physical card game tournaments, and not released until their opponent has decided they're finished with them.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302912#Comment_3302912
Sure, I'd buy that in StarCraft it's different, if there truly is literally no way for you to win. That's a perfectly good enough reason to have a dedicated surrender button, or even to just not have a penalty for outright quitting either, in that game. DBD, however, is not StarCraft, and a match is not actually meaningfully lost until the survivors have opened the exit gates and are standing inside one.
We've all had matches that feel like a slog halfway through but it's still good sportsmanship to play it out, because it isn't actually meaningfully lost yet. You can - and in a lot of cases will - turn it around in the endgame. The match is not over, so you leaving isn't functionally the same as letting the match play out.
You think DbD is the only game where comebacks can happen when you're behind? Many card games are turned around at the last minute by one perfect draw that gives the player exactly what they needed to win. But that's beating the odds, and the game still lets you concede at any time if you don't want to play it out.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302903#Comment_3302903
No rationale for prolonging the match... except for that you queued up to play a match, which means it's a fair expectation that you finish it. The survivors may get four escapes for free (except not really, I don't think they count as escapes for challenges and such), but they didn't queue up just to see the escape screen, they queued up to play a match of DBD.
You shouldn't get to just ruin the match for everyone solely because you're not having fun anymore. It's basic good sportsmanship, not an unfair burden.
So if I've lost a StarCraft match, the game is effectively done, I have no army, not enough time/resources to make another, and all that's left is for me to wait for my opponent to destroy every last one of my buildings (The normal win condition), it's poor sportsmanship for me to say "I concede"?
The game's community has the opposite stance; if you say GG and quit, they call you a good sport, but if you try to prolong the match by hiding a building in the outskirts of the map, they'll usually call you a bad sport.
Same goes for most card games I've played; if you know you have nothing to stop your opponent with, it's often considered bad manners to try and prolong the match anyway. But saying "I concede"? Nobody bats an eye.
Hell, even for team games, it's not unheard-of for a team (Even in a competitive setting) to hold a "Surrender" vote and agree to surrender, and again, nobody calls them a bad sport for that. They're not under any obligation to prolong the match just to feed the other team's egos.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302887#Comment_3302887
...All the ones I recognise there are 1v1, though?
Clearly it's different to concede to one person as opposed to ending the match for four people. I hadn't even considered one on one games because... that's clearly a different beast entirely, different rules and expectations apply.
Even so, again, see above; why is it an unfair expectation for you to actually play out the match you queued up for?
Says who? My understanding of why there is a leaver penalty in team games is because you have teammates who need your help in order to win. That's usually what pops up in the warnings when you press the "Leave match" button. But again, there are no teammates to speak of when you're playing Killer.
It's no skin off the survivors' back if they get 4 escapes for free. There is no rational basis to prolong the match if the Killer isn't having fun anymore.
-
@jesterkind said:
I can't think of any game personally where you don't have any teammates and where you leaving ends the game immediately for everyone, that doesn't have some kind of penalty for leaving.
Most of the time if there isn't a penalty, it's like, a battle royale, where you leaving doesn't really affect any specific other player. In DBD, if the killer leaves, the match ends and it affects everyone.
In general, though, why is it considered such an extreme burden to finish playing a match you queued up for?
Let's see, off the top of my head: StarCraft, Hearthstone, Legends of Runeterra, Battletech, Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Dawn of War, Battlesector, World of Warcraft (Dueling), Darkest Dungeon (Butcher's Circus), XCOM (Multiplayer)... and probably many, many others.
Like I said, DbD is highly unusual for penalizing you for conceding. If one player in a 1v1 sees no point in continuing the match, they can usually give up at any time. The game counts it as a loss, and everyone moves on. And the player's reasons for conceding, as far as the game is concerned, are none of your business.
-
@Seraphor said:
Dead Hard is no better or worse than Exposed. So as long a survivors can be downed in one hit fewer than usual, then a perk thats adds one potential hit is perfectly fine.
You'll notice that Exposed, as a status effect, is conditional. Perks that apply it only activate under pretty specific conditions, can be permanently deactivated with relative ease, or both. Instadowns eat up a pretty huge portion of a Killer's power budget if their power has one.
But Dead Hard? It's almost unheard-of for you to NOT get an opportunity to use it; you're often able to do so multiple times in a single match, in fact. And all 4 survivors all using this perk in a match? The amount of time it can buy a team is astronomical.
Point me to the perk that applies Exposed multiple times in a single match, to a survivor of your choosing, with no conditions required, and we'll talk.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/358917/dead-hard-still-needs-to-go
By same reasoning we should delete spirit fury, enduring, hubris, crowd control, dissonance, claustrophobia, deadlock, .... Because survivors should not get punished by doing there objective/prolonging chases with killers. The idea is just wrong. Both sides have things that make their life easier. DH is survivor's version of strong prolong game. All the regression perks (especially CoB, OC and eruption) are the strong things that prolong killer's game. If DH should go, so should regression perks to balance it out.
Anyway if you can't play around 0.5s hit protection in this laggy environment, that is your skill issue. Also it's not that rare that I can hit survivor that DH's into pallet before he can drop it - by just slightly postponing my hit and not respecting pallet (sure the timing is not very forgiving - same as DH).
Survivors can pre-drop pallets to avoid Spirit Fury, Enduring and Hubris. They can choose to repair one generator at a time to avoid Deadlock. They can choose not to stack on one generator to avoid Discordance. They can choose to leave a loop if they see the window get blocked by Crowd Control (Or to cleanse the totem).
But try playing Killer without hitting injured Survivors sometime. Because that's the only condition that needs to be fulfilled for DH to activate.
Oh, so the Oni who got Dead Harded twice in the November community cup finals was just a noob? Gimme a break.
-
@Fantasy said:
If you still struggle with dead hard this much it's a skill issue.
It's a meta perk even in tournaments. And if tournament-level Killers are still getting Dead Harded, then I don't think it's a skill issue.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
The "meta" is a problem on both sides.... Just Saying
Well, not much about the Killer perk meta explicitly encourages tunneling. No Way Out even rewards you for doing the exact opposite. But Dead Hard? It can actively punish you for NOT tunneling.
-
@Starrseed said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296467#Comment_3296467
Yeah I also think tunneling should be an option butthe devs need to do something about that hard tunneling. There are situations where tunneling is the right call and I think most survivor players would say this too but just tunneling out the first guy you see and even ignorering every opportunity to get a down on anyone else isn't good. It's sucks for the one being tunnels and till the tunnel is completet there not much for the other to do except gens. It's just not good for game health but I am pretty sure in the devs wor on it hard enough they will find a good working way so we can have both
Personally, I think part of the problem is the current perk meta. Dead Hard in particular. Having every Survivor potentially get a third health state heavily discourages the Killer from switching targets, and the only scenario where Dead Hard isn't particularly handy is when you're being tunneled, given that Off the Record makes DH kinda redundant.
A perk like Sprint Burst, on the other hand, makes it much more likely for the unhooked to get away safely, stacks with OTR, and isn't as oppressive outside of unhook scenarios.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296409#Comment_3296409
This is just a lot of excuses for playing in a scummy way and if you feel you need to do that then I can't stop you.
But I continue to win most matches without resorting to scummy tactics and oppressive builds. You can claim that I am not going against good survivors but at some point if I am winning and easily getting rank 1 Iri within the first couple of weeks of reset, I must at some point be matched against better opponents.
You do you but I refuse to play like this and perpetuate the cycle of toxicity
You know there's a soft cap on MMR, right? After a point, at not that high a skill level, the matchmaking mostly just gives up and matches you with whoever. How do you think pro players easily get winstreaks that go into the dozens, or the hundreds? In most competitive games, the #1 player on the leaderboard, going all-out every match, can maybe manage a 60+% winrate over the course of that many matches. And if it's 90+%, they're probably cheating.
So no, being a player that the matchmaking system doesn't know what to do with doesn't give you the right to police other people for using a straightforward winning strategy that any good player is fully expecting to face. Tournament-level Killers will tell you, against Survivors at their skill level, they'd be doing their opponents a disservice if they refused to tunnel.
@Starrseed said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296409#Comment_3296409
That's why I say when they do something against extreme tunneling they need to buff the killers that actually the whole point of this post.
And you could give the killer a reason to don't attack the freshly unhooked player. Give a bonus for attacking the unhooker give a small regression to all gens for attacking them. Give the survivor gens speed boost for going after the unhooked of course not when they take a hit. You can go more and more extreme till it works on the end you could make the unhooked outright invisible for the killer not that I think that's a good idea just to show how far the devs could go
I think tunneling should still be an option under some circumstances, unless you're looking to completely rework the hook system (e.g. Shared hooks across the entire team). Because regardless of how one may personally feel about it, tunneling creates a lot of opportunities for interaction between the Killer and Survivors. Tunneling changes how Survivors behave instead of just endlessly rotating between gens and taking turns on the hook. If a survivor on death hook is being chased, then suddenly the other Survivors have a reason to go for protection hits, pallet saves, flashlight saves, maneuvers that are often not worth your time otherwise. Suddenly a Prove Thyself user has a big opportunity to get value knowing the Killer will leave them alone.
Similar to how the Killer's behavior changes the more gens they lose.
-
@Starrseed said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296385#Comment_3296385
No one is talking about tunneling and camping in general even in my original post I say there are times where tunneling and camping is the right call. But tunneling the first person out asap or camping at 5 gens is not necessary and not good for the game and I even advocate for buffs to make up for it. I also think when the survs make a stupid play I should use this to win so a strategic tunnel or camp is good
If you can get away with not tunneling the first person out ASAP, you're not playing against Survivors at your skill level.
The Killer's objective is to kill. They will trend towards whatever strategy gets them kills the fastest. And the Survivor's objective is to survive. If they make mistakes, the natural consequence should be for them to die.
If you really want tunneling to stop that badly, you're gonna be looking at a pretty big overhaul of a lot of the game's core systems, especially the hook system, because when the Killer gets an unhook notification, they now know exactly where to find not one, but two survivors. And unless their Discordance just popped or they're already in another chase, the logical next step is to go back to the hook. And given that the Killer's objective is to kill, then unless they have a big incentive not to, they're gonna go for the survivor that's closer to dying.
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296385#Comment_3296385
Lol no, these are not comparable at all. You have no other way to dispatch of your opponent in shooters, shooting is the main mechanic other than things like grenades etc.
Your objective in DBD is to prevent gens getting done and kill the survivors... how you do that is up to you.
I see who I play against, I often play with the same people so I know their skill level. But pressure, mindgames and game sense all win games and you can do it without playing in a scummy and unfun way.
People just want to make excuses for their scummy conduct
Oh, so my team should leave the bombsites undefended on purpose because that would be more "fair"? Wait for them to plant before making a single move?
People like you who feel the need to make up a million arbitrary rules for other people's conduct and chastise them for using basic strategy are easily among the most toxic players in the community, especially in endgame chats. Not even using an OP or unfun item, perk, or character, just making the correct plays to win.
Just because the matchmaking system doesn't give you a fair fight doesn't mean you get to decide how everyone else should play the game.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296371#Comment_3296371
Sometimes it does cost me kills, sometimes it may even lose me the match but I am okay with this as more often than not I get pressure from keeping them busy unhooking.
I made very clear that actually skilled teams (as in tournaments) can deal with this but in public lobbies 99% of players are casual and not difficult to win against.
Call me old fashioned but I don't like to inflict on others what I don't enjoy and I know that being tunnelled out of the game so you cant even play is a horrible feeling, so I refuse to inflict this on others if they are not being toxic to me (tea bagging, clicking, spam vaulting). I don't run NOED, I refuse to use Eruption or mind numbing full slowdown builds...
Against a truly skilled comp level team, most will lose whether they tunnel or camp and lets be honest here, people tunnel and camp because they can't win by outplaying their opponent in an honourable way. This may not matter to others and so be it but it does matter to me.
Nobody likes dying in CS:GO. Does that mean you shouldn't kill your opponents when you have the chance? Or perhaps you should buy a bad gun on purpose because that would be more "fair", and people who choose otherwise are just noobs?
If you can get away with making bad plays on purpose, game-throwing plays even, then that is a failure of the matchmaking system. A Killer who chooses to tunnel or camp at an opportune moment is no more dishonorable than a CS:GO player who throws a flashbang.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296331#Comment_3296331
This is one of the big problems with DBD... there are a lot of people with an incredibly selfish attitude and it creates a cycle of toxicity that can make this game incredibly unfun.
You are there to kill, not to "end fun" and if you are actually good at the game you can do both. I never tunnel, never camp and I win at least 90% of my killer matches. I am not even that good as far as I am concerned but I still manage to play 'fair' while winning at the same time.
DbD has one of the most extensive and rigid codes of ethics that I know of for a PvP game. Where you are looked down on not merely for griefing, throwing, cheating or playing a particular character, but literally just for using the correct strategy to win. A strategy that Killers regularly use in tournaments, mind you.
No one is under an obligation to make bad decisions on purpose in a PvP game, just because that would be more "fair". Tunneling and camping (When the situation calls for it) is the optimal strategy. If you can get away with outright refusing to tunnel or camp, then you're clearly getting matched with bad survivors. If you were actually playing against survivors at your skill level, refusing to tunnel or camp should be regularly costing you kills.
-
110% Killer, one Blink, longer Blink recharge, shorter maximum Blink distance (Nerf the blink distance addons especially). If the ability to phase through walls (Along with anything else a Survivor might normally use to avoid being hit) is core to her kit, fine. But no more double blinks, give Survivors a longer grace period before the next Blink, and its utility for map traversal should be roughly at Wesker's level.
I consider Wesker to be Nurse's concept done right. Fast and nimble, but still has to play by the game's rules in most respects.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/358055/my-opinion-on-tunneling-and-camping
But and here starts the stuff many people don't want to hear. But that would mean either buffs to killer or nerfs to survivor.
First off: Is that true?
I know the argument gets trotted out frequently that 'killers can't win if they don't camp/tunnel', but the problem with that is that killer skill levels are also a factor, and so is the skill based matchmaking. If you're employing these techniques as crutches and they prop up your MMR, why wouldn't you end up playing against survivors that are above your appropriate skill level?
And secondly: Consider the inverse as well. If killers want to keep camping/tunnelling, survivors will need a hefty buff or killers need nerfs elsewhere.
The problem with camping/tunnelling is that it creates entirely different balancing plateaus. We can either balance for 'no camp/tunnel' or 'camp/tunnel', but not both. Same issue arises with, for example, Brand New Part, which is why I think it needs to be deleted.
The go-to strategy for tournament-level Killers is to tunnel, or to do a slight variation of tunneling where they pick two survivors and alternate between them until one of them dies (To avoid perks like OTR and to avoid losing too much time if they lose the one chosen survivor). So yes, I'd say it's quite necessary against survivors at your skill level.
-
@Laurie268 said:
As long as nurse is in the game, no one has the right to complain about DH. It’s the only thing stopping her from downing you in 10 secs. I’m okay with deleting DH if they remove nurse and nerf alchemist ring
I'd gladly accept a full Nurse rework if they delete DH. I play both sides, and I completely understand the frustration with Nurse. And much like DH, the fact that Nurse takes skill to use is cold comfort for players on the receiving end of her.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3295477#Comment_3295477
I do agree that many players lie to themself how good they are and are quick to blame others before themself
But as with all good lies there is a hint of truth in there
There is no denying that swf with coms gives a huge advantage that the game doesn't give by base.
It really isn't a stretch of the imagination to say there are matches that killer players lose that they would have easily won if communication wasn't a factor
Agreed. I run Bond as a solo survivor, it gives me a lot of information I wouldn't otherwise have, helps me make better decisions, but it pales in comparison to the information that even a casual SWF can share amongst themselves.
And a sweaty SWF? It's like Kindred, Bond and a Map with Crystal Bead all rolled into one, and it doesn't take up even a single perk or item slot.
-
By far my least favorite perk to go against, and that's saying something considering Eruption exists. A third health state on-demand is insanely powerful, easily enough to sway the outcome of an entire match with just one successful use. You not only get a free speed boost instead of going down but force the Killer to go into cooldown for nothing. Not to mention that now Killers are afraid to swing when they have a Survivor cornered, and need to take it into account anytime a Survivor is within reach.
Endurance is just too good to be an on-demand Exhaustion perk. It needs to either be one-use-only like Styptic, or only activate under very specific conditions like BT, OTR, Soul Guard, and WGLF.
-
@Little_Kitten said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277178#Comment_3277178
As I said, the games where Supaalf uses Starstruck are not interesting for the analysis 🤔
You have to look at their games where he used other perks, and see how not using Starstruck tilts the balance in favor of Hens333's team.
It should also be remembered that Hens333 and his team were not at full strength. They were not using the biggest items and accessories in the game, and their build, although interesting, was limited.
Finally ... I wonder what to think of what Hens himself says under his video, namely "Playing against nurse with my team is actually fun" ... I guess I'll be told he's lying 😁
And, concerning the flashlight: yes, it is very useful against the nurse. If used correctly, it will force the nurse to fall into a state of fatigue, making her lose precious seconds.
If the player in question is also a good nurse looper, and is part of a fast and efficient team, the value that can be gained from it is absolutely not insignificant.
If a Killer is only balanced when they're deliberately running a bad build, then the Killer is not balanced.
Alf was dominating tournament-level Survivors long before Starstruck existed.
"Playing against Nurse is actually fun"... because some people like a game designed to make them suffer. Why do you think Dark Souls is so popular?
Wow, occasionally buying yourself an extra 5-10 seconds in chase (Not with any consistency, mind you)... that buys almost as much time for your team as bringing a Medkit does.
-
@Little_Kitten said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3276387#Comment_3276387
Concerning the theoretical aspect, it's a mix of several things, which have been detailed and explained several times on this forum.
However, for the practical aspect, I refer, for example, to the recent videos of Supaalf and Hens333, during their confrontation; I think in particular of the parts where Supaalf does not use the famous "Starstruck's build" (which in my opinion has no reason to be, I am part of those who agree to prevent the nurse from being able to use Starstruck) 😃
We can see Hens333's team managing to stand up to Supaalf, especially thanks to the very clever use of the flashlight 😀
Were we watching the same video? I saw a matchup that only became remotely fair when the rules forced Alf to gimp himself on perks. Not just forgoing Starstruck, but also running deeply suboptimal gen slowdown perks.
The Flashlight plays barely slowed the Nurse down. What I see is that even Survivors at the absolute pinnacle of player skill still can't consistently dodge the Nurse.
And no wonder; when you go down is entirely up to the Nurse.
-
@Aceislife said:
Nurse isnt broken. Starstruck + Agitation on her is.
Where have you been? Nurse was the undisputed queen of the meta long before Starstruck was a thing. She received all of the exact same complaints that she does now.
The problem isn't perks, the problem is Nurse. It's always been Nurse, and it will continue to be Nurse until the day she finally, finally gets the rework she should have received years ago.
-
Aye. Overcharge is stuck at level 2, but all my other Prestige 3 Killers are fine.
-
Same issue, on Doctor.
-
I approve of Decisive Strike as an anti-tunnel perk, but I hate seeing it used as a 60-second invincibility buff, where survivors can make stupid plays like repairing a gen or unhooking right in front of the Killer and not get punished for it. I eagerly await the patch where this change goes through.
-
@fcc2014 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1127018#Comment_1127018
You can grab an injured survivor during a chase through a window or off a pallet so yeah no.
@NMCKE you can't do the hook another person thing either. Look how many farmers and dumb plays teammates make.
I'm hooked the survivor comes in hot with the killer trailing and already injured unhooks me without BT and both of us get downed. The killer hooks the farmer now im completely screwed.
Then it should be deactivated if you attempt an unhook. So it'll work if you're just running away from a killer who's tunneling you, but it won't work if you're using DS to go for unsafe unhooks.
-
@xenofon13 said:
They changed ruin because all the killers running: Ruin, Pop, BBQ, Thana or DL with slow down add ons. Survivors know your build before the game even started.
That's it. Hook, pop, hook, pop, hook pop.
Now we'll see how many of you were ruin reliable. Because a lot of you, ruin carried you hard. Ruin was the killer, not you.
Well, when you're a green-ranked Killer getting constantly matched up against whole teams of red-ranked Survivors, you need to leverage every advantage you can get.
I'd love to use a build that's less obnoxious and less annoying to play against, but I don't want every single match to end in a humiliating defeat because all of the survivors are 6 ranks higher than me. It's way more fun for me to play against survivors that are actually at my skill level.
-
I think the main problem is that the early game is too survivor-sided without Ruin. Until the Killer gets their first down, the Survivors have free reign over the generators, with the end result that a low-mobility Killer will often lose a generator before they even find their first Survivor, and they might lose multiple generators before they can finish their first chase.
That's the biggest problem that needs to be addressed, in my opinion.
-
The real problem seems to be that it's way too easy for survivors to rank up, and extremely difficult for Killers to rank up.
It took me multiple months to hit purple ranks as Killer, and I didn't stay there for long. But it only took a few days for me to hit purple ranks as a Survivor.
Killers will often miss out on well-deserved pips because of the emblem system; I've seen Killers get nothing more than a black pip from a 4k. Meanwhile, it's almost laughably easy to get pips as a Survivor, even if you don't escape.
There are a LOT of survivors at the red ranks, while most Killers are hardstuck in the green ranks because they get matched with red-ranked survivors constantly.
-
Eh, when I rickroll people, I prefer to put in some subtle hints that there's a rickroll. Like, having the first letter of every sentence spell out the word "RICKROLLED". Like this:
Rejoice! It's finally here! Coming to you straight from Youtube. Kick off your shoes and sit back for a peek at why this game is Killer sided.
Rewatch over and over and memorize all the details. Observe how every Killer can dominate the game. Laugh at the idea that this game is Survivor sided in any way. Leave a comment! Enjoy sharing this video with all your friends! Downvote excessively.
-
I like the rework to the Doctor. If they reduce the cooldown period after using shock therapy, I think he'll be in a good spot.
I disapprove of the changes to Ruin. Not because I thought the old Ruin was a well-designed perk or because I think the new Ruin is a poorly-designed perk, but because no other perk can slow down gen progression like Ruin can, especially in the crucial early game when the survivors have free reign over the generators.
Killer mains are justifiably upset, because generators can be completed extremely quickly by a competent survivor team (The current record is 2 minutes 40 seconds), giving them little to no time to get hooks. Often, the first generator can be completed before the Killer even has a chance to reach it, if they don't have Ruin. At best, Killers will be forced to slug, camp and tunnel constantly in order to avoid losing the game to the constant genrushes. At worst, they'll mostly just quit.
Killers want to be able to play the game without feeling like the slightest error will cost them the match, and they hate having such a short window of time to kill the survivors. A lot of Killers want to "play nice" and keep slugging, camping and tunneling to a minimum, but the current gen times give them no room to do so.
Killers in the lower ranks also hate the fact that they get matched with red-ranked survivors constantly, but that's a different story.
-
@Elvenmonk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/978737#Comment_978737
That's only temp.
Once everyone starts to rank up they'll be where they belong. Yes the red ranks will squish everyone at first but they'll leave. As they're leaving so are the purples and so on. It'd be a mess for like a week or two
And then after that week or two is over, we'd have the same issues we did before. I don't see how this change would accomplish anything significant.
-
@dbd900bach said:
On the topic of ranking and the emblem system(which is probably off topic on this lost but...) If the dev's ever decide to fix the ranking so people go against people of equal skill, would it be wrong to set everyone back at rank 20 then just let everyone fall into the right place? I don't exactly what would happen and I'm probably wrong but it could filter out everyone despite the couple days of absolute chaos which is small price to pay.
That wouldn't work all that well. Lots of people would get hardstuck at the low ranks, due to people from lots of different skill levels getting matched together.
-
@gantes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/977792#Comment_977792
If you can play nice and win it means it's too easy to win playing like a dickhead.
If the game's mechanics actively encourage you to play like a dickhead, there's a problem.
-
@gantes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/977679#Comment_977679
If killers can afford to "play nice" and still win then there's a problem
If the fun way to play (Fun for the Killer AND the Survivors) is the wrong way to play, there's a problem.
-
@EverflowingRiver said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/977042#Comment_977042
If they release a statement saying they are happy with the changes and expect outrage for it, and then keep the changes, how is this not ignoring feedback. This was done with nurse, spirit, legion, and now ruin. Not once have k seem the devs scale back changes from the ptb into the actual game. Also, it's very hard to have faith in internal tests. I'm not accusing them if being dishonest, but there is a lack of transparency that is concerning.
You realize that Peanits just announced that they're going to lower the delay between using Shock Therapy and attacking? And for Legion, they made multiple changes to him between PTB and Live?
I don't like the changes to Ruin either (Specifically, I don't like that they didn't really address the issue of gen speeds), but we shouldn't spread a false narrative.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/976436#Comment_976436
That depends on the player. Many good players don't ever use ruin.
If they don't rely on it and stay at red ranks what does that say about those that do?
They don't wanna have to slug everyone, camp them or tunnel? Survivors complain about all of those things on a regular basis, and players like Otz do them on a regular basis.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/976361#Comment_976361
I don't want to be that guy, but ranks haven't been removed from the tally screen. You'd have known that if you gave it a try first.
Peanits, it seems like you're ignoring the primary complaint here: You're not addressing why 80% of red-ranked Killers used Ruin. I seriously doubt it was because of the Gatekeeper emblem. I think it had much more to do with the fact that gens are finished too quickly in the early game.
Survivors can knock out a generator long before the Killer can physically reach them, and the game can be finished in as little as 3 minutes if the survivors know what they're doing.
Most Killers feel like Ruin is largely mandatory if they want to "play nice" and avoid slugging, camping or tunneling. Otherwise, they simply don't have enough time to get 12 hooks before the game is over. The new Ruin does nothing to address the crucial early game.
-
On many maps, in the time it takes a 115% Killer to reach the most distant generator, the survivors can finish it long before the Killer arrives, especially if they have Prove Thyself.
Expect Corrupt Intervention to be a meta perk now.
-
The main thing that Surge has over the new Ruin is that it's not a Hex perk. It can't be disabled.