Moundshroud
Moundshroud
About
- Username
- Moundshroud
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Drixpy_Jayyy said:
I mean seriously please get it from the shrine ASAP Im getting tired of getting farmed off the hook plus it will kill you guys altruism if you farm people without bt.
Preach. Bring it, live it, love it.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163890#Comment_2163890
Sorry i was editing I know you posted it but I didn't want to misunderstand becuase it got lost in the rest of your post.
So to clarify losing one of those 5 effectively reduces you to a bot.
My next question is do you play a mori offering every single match?
No, and stop playing dumb. The point is not that I use a Mori in every match (I rarely use them) but that I have the OPTION to use them. I know where you want to go with these inane questions, and it is a moot direction. We are talking about CHOICE, not application. Players must have agency or they lose interest. Whether they exercise it or not, it is important that it is an option.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163850#Comment_2163850
Man it's like you took great pains to write a long post but completely ignore the really simple question. Do you believe your own post or not
You said loosing any of the 5 killer plays would effectively reduce them to bots. Do you believe this or not?
You wrote it Do you believe it or not? Either way is fine there's no wrong answer just gotta be honest
What part of what I just wrote do you NOT understand? I said yes, it reduces them to Bots. I literally just said it in the post you answered. At this point, I have to believe you are playing dumb to avoid the debate, because there is no way you are this obtuse.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163814#Comment_2163814
Oh no I don't want rhetorical questions I want a strait answer to my question
Your post said losing one of those 5 option you listed would reduce a killer to little more than a bot. Then you seemed to change your mind on this point. So do you believe what you posted or not?
Ok, let me try to explain this in more plain terms because I'm very consistent. I suspect I'm losing you where we come to philosophical concepts of player agency, i.e. free will. I believe removing any of them does reduce Killers to being glorified Bots. If their choices are not their own, but ordained by mechanics put in to force them to act in specific ways, there is no other way of looking at it. You either believe in free will or you do not. You either have free agency or you do not. It isn't something you can half ass. For example, the DEV clearly understand this (desire it even). Consider Totems. They could make them MANDATORY, yet another hurdle that you have no choice but to complete before exiting the match. Because they understand that Survivors should have agency, they make cleansing them optional. It is one many choices Survivors can make. Killers have fewer choices by in large, and the loss of any of them will turn them into chase bots. Without the ability to camp or honeypot as an option (taken or not) they are chase bots whose only options are who to chase and whether I hook now or slug to continue chasing. That's it. So yes, the ability to ambush, particularly in and around a hook is paramount. Will Killers do it all the time? No. They don't do it all the time now; that is merely hyperbole. But what is important is they have the option to do it. Does that answer your question?
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163740#Comment_2163740
The size of your words is fine it's the consistency of them that's the problem. Before you said that killers would be nothing more than Bots if they lost one of 5 things you listed. Then you seemed tobl reduce those all import things to just three. So just make it simple do you still believe what you posted about needing those 5 things or the killers become little more than Bots like you said or not. It shouldn't be too hard to say yes that is what I believe that's why I typed it in, or no that's not what I really believe I just said that because I need camping in this game and this sounded like a better argument in my head than
Camping is good because I like camping don't get rid of it.
I await your clarification
Oh, I get it now. You want to play rhetorical games with me rather than answering any of the arguments I put forward. There are a couple of issues with your approach, not the least of which is that I am famous (or infamous if you prefer) for enjoying grinding people like you into the ground. The other issue is that I neither like nor dislike Camping. I consider it just a niche tool, and have no emotional attachment to it one way or the other. I consider removing Killer choices bad because as I stated:
- All previous attempts tested resulted in Survivors abusing the heck out of it.
- Killers quit playing when they realized they had few choices to make.
I simply play the game to win, regardless of what role I'm currently taking on. I will happily Herd, Camp, Tunnel, Slug, and use a Mori if that is the right call for a specific match. Tactics are not strategies, and attempting to use tactics as a strategy is a losing proposition. You don't know what is the best tactic to use in a match until you arrive. By in large, I find Camping inefficient because Generator pressure is a better route nine times out of ten, to preventing the gates from ever powering up before I kill everyone. That is the same reason I rarely use NOED. I don't like to build for an End Game that I never intend to reach. You are simply barking up the WRONG tree. You are making assumptions about why I am debating with you. You assume it is because I am afraid of losing my favorite toy. Your failure to comprehend is your problem, not mine. I simply understand the game, understand the history, and know the testing. You clearly do not.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
I wanted to do this to try it out and honestly it was fun. I didn't find it frustrating as actual solo. The way how I did it was that I muted myself and my friends so I couldn't hear them and they couldn't hear me. Just the sound of the game. I didn't even plan things out before the match either I just muted myself without them knowing.
It was really intense but not frustrating. Maybe because it's nice to relay on your friends rather then complete stranger and I will definitely be doing it more often.
Does anyone else do this and do you enjoy it?
Yes. I'm not a fan of the competitive edge SWF provides. My preference is that me and my friends, when we actually play SWF, only talk about things NOT related to the game. Communication in the game is left to animations, and simply know one another and how we play. Mostly I play Solo because my friends and I can't get together, but when we do it is our preference to play CUSTOM GAMES first, and not share info second.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163648#Comment_2163648
Sorry I'm having trouble following you now. We're the killers glorified bots if they loose one of those things or not? Or now is it only if they lose camping and tunneling and slugging. Could you make up your mind on what your claiming to believe real quick?
I say claiming because it seems like you don't really believe what you post you just really don't want to loose camping but I could be wrong so I'm looking for clarification
Edit sorry posted bits meant to type bots
Do you need me to use smaller words? I'm not sure where your failure to comprehend is taking place. I've already told you what I think, that Player Agency is paramount in this game for both Killer and Survivor. That means that mechanics which constrain what people can do in the match are a bad idea. I think losing any agency whatsoever is the wrong approach, and I am backed up by the fact that this has ALREADY been tested. I'm not stating anything new, or claiming divine wisdom. I'm stating the results of test after test after test. Killers must have agency to make their own choices once the match begins or the game doesn't work. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and thus you must take some bad for the greater good. That means that the two minutes we take on the hook from time to time is the price we pay for the game to work overall. Some of us understand that and pay our dues. Some of us are selfish little snots who think the world revolves around them and don't care about the big picture.
-
@Laluzi said:
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have an easier time seeing things and finding my way around the Swamp.
Coldwind's just become my least favorite map. I don't know what it is, but it's just visually overloading and it feels gigantic. It's beautiful and I love the detail, but I'm having a horrible time playing killer on it.
That is just because it is new and just different enough that your muscle memory of locations hasn't adjusted yet. Give it a week.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163581#Comment_2163581
No I think you stated quite clearly that without those selected options the killers were nothing more than Bots. Did you want to change your point on that then? Admit that losing one of those options would not reduce killer to Bots. If that wasn't what you intended by your post my apologies, here is your chance to clarify...
So, do you think losing one of those options would reduce killers to little more than Bots or not?
Losing any of the very few options Killers have, besides chase, would be devastating to Player agency. More to the point, if they were to remove even ONE of the big three, i.e. Camp, Tunnel, or Slug, it would not stop there. You and your ilk would just be emboldened by the success and move on to getting the next one removed too. :) That is also something we have seen over and over again. Player agency is a harsh mistress, you either have it or you don't. But let me echo a point I made earlier (as have many others besides me):
The DEV have already told you it isn't going to happen. They have gone five years now, so I think they are pretty happy with their final call. They experimented a great deal and came to the same conclusion over and over again. You act like these ideas you guys are putting forward are new and revolutionary. The are not. They are simply a rehash of tested notions repackaged and vomited back up with salt and angst. There isn't going to be any Deus Ex Machina. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face. It doesn't matter if you could change my mind or not, this Rubicon has already been crossed and there is no going back.
-
@MadLordJack said:
I'm so glad the whiny, "I'm-so-weak" survivor mains don't realise how ######### strong lucky break is. As it stands, I'm not playing any killers except Plague, and if it enters the rotation as a meta perk I might actually drop killer altogether.
I know, right? During the PTB I said I thought it was strong but shaking up the Meta was probably not a horrible thing. But to listen to these needy, mewling types they want the DAMN WORLD. It is already better than most of the more experienced people wanted. I've said it time and time again, you can NEVER satisfy people who whine and demand things. All that happens is they get taste for it and want more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT23uB5XaXg -
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163581#Comment_2163581
You might of responded to the wrong post
You have my apology, I absolutely did. I don't know why I thought you were talking to me.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163553#Comment_2163553
Hey look at that you posted exactly as I said you would about how survovs are supposed to get caught etc.
but if that was the case then Bubba was intended to not just sit infornt of the hook waiting for thr game to end. And I guess you and other killers can't just use the well just don't get caught argument to justify camping as survivors are supposed to get caught during a match. Multiple times it seems.
Man that whole not removing all doubt by speaking up must be hard on you i take it?
Actually, Bubba was designed with exactly that in mind. That is why his chainsaw is designed to hit multiple Survivors. There is a reason Insidious exists and is in the game. There is a reason the basement has those convenient places to stand where you can't be seen. If you look at the evidence, the DEV have actually designed a lot of the options you are complaining about right into the game. Has it ever occurred to you that Hooks tend to appear in places with convenient places to hide, or on top of hills where access bottlenecks? Again, I'm pointing out that the game not only condones Players making these choices, it has been designed to make them viable options. Choice is everything.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163551#Comment_2163551
.......Did you REALLY just tell me they can differentiate between camping that is needed...And people who are doing it to be dicks....By comparing it to DS....? Seriously my guy. Please think your arguments through. DS was a simple fix "if you yourself do anything yourself to progress the game. It's deactivated"
Now go ahead and tell me how they can differentiate between camping situations. That doesn't involve "just being in chase" And how they can tell when the killer feels it's neccesary
No, I said it isn't anyone's place but the Killer to decide what they are going to do. If they Camp for a reason, that is their choice. If they Camp to be a jerk, that is likewise their choice. What I'm saying is that even when Perks and Add-on(s) are changed, Players still have the CHOICE to take them or not. Artificial mechanics inserted into the game take away Player agency. The are not the same thing.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2162753#Comment_2162753
Just to be clear what are the camped survivors supposed to do while the others are doing gens.......nothing, oh how fun.
Tell you what though if your ok with saying just avoid failures then let's have the killers speeds reduced to match survivors or survivors increased to match match killers.
if you did that I'm ok with saying then just don't get caught becuase when two equally skilled players are playing against each other the survivor woukd have an actual chance to avoid the failure state.
Because as the game is currently designed the killer will win the chase in if they are both similarly skilled because the killer is faster. Funny I doubt you'd be ok with that probably some excuse about how it was intended that killers would catch survivors, then hook them, then go after another survivor, right?
Why do you people post with absolutely no understanding of the game? Did you not learn the lesson that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt? Killers (some anyway) are faster because there are FOUR Survivors. The game expects you to get hit, downed, and put on that hook. You are expected to have to work as a team to overcome the Killer's brute force.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163451#Comment_2163451
Here's a question for you: Why are things getting buffed or nerfed, instead of everyone 'just dealing with it'?
Everything in the game has some margin of possible change. I mean, look at all the complaints about keys. Couldn't we just tell killers to suck it up, too, and just 'deal with it'?
You can keep pointing to the game's history, but that is meaningless. An old problem is still a problem. You can point to the devs' stance, but that, too, is meaningless. They are not infallible.
Ultimately, what matters is whether or not camping is good for the game, and pretty much everyone says it's not, even those opposed to changing it. You're the first person I've seen make an actual argument about it, and I don't think it's a particularly strong one, since there's nothing that says that this couldn't be paired with other changes that improve the overall killer experience.
Camping is legitimately the worst thing DBD has on offer, and there's no one that actually enjoys it. So it's only natural that people start to think about discouraging it more.
There is a difference between buffing, debuffing, and reworking Add-on(s) and Perks. You still have Player Agency, i.e. a CHOICE, to choose said things or leave them off. Artificial mechanics which strictly regulate how Players can function in the game remove Player Agency entirely. These are apples an oranges. If you remove agency, you lose Players; it is as simple as that. Nobody wants to be reduced to playing a glorified BOT. Without the option to choose to Camp, Tunnel, Slug, Herd, and/or Mori, Killers are nothing more than chase engines who have to run around like the four Ghosts in Pac Man. Choice, or at least an illusion of it, has to exist to keep the interest of any Player in any game. What you fail to understand is that the DEV tested all sorts of things over the years and came to the same conclusion over and over again. Not only will Survivors immediately abuse any artificial constraint placed on Killers, but Players simply opt out of playing Killer when they realize they have little in the way of choices to make. When it comes to "chase" games there are far better ones than DbD. What makes this game unique is PLAYER AGENCY and the unpredictable (and sometimes unfair) nature of it.
So let me lay it out for you again:
- There are no Bots.
- Since both roles are required for the game to work DbD must avoid loss of either role.
- Since you need at least one Killer to four Survivors, there is a smaller margin of error on losing Killers.
So unless you find an ENTIRELY NEW WAY to rebuild DbD from the ground up to provide Killers new, alternate choices besides running around like mindless Bots in chases with zero tactics to apply, these biased (dare I say tunnel-vision) constraints are DOA. Players who take on the role of Killers expect AND DESERVE exactly the same agency as those playing Survivor.
-
@cloakz said:
So today I was playing Xbox dbd with some friends and we kept getting purple rank killers using noed, I counted and we got 15 killers in a row with noed, I thought not a lot of people used it especially in purple ranks. What’s going on?
Because they paid for the Perk with the BP they earned and can use it if they feel the desire? There is kind of an ebb and flow in NOED use. When Survivors stop bothering with Totems for awhile (or as much) NOED use goes up. When Survivors are bang on the ball and Totems drop like flies, NOED use goes down. Myself, personally, I don't like End Game Perks because I prefer to kill you all before the last Generator is brought on line. Even so, I will put NOED in from time to time to mix things up, or if I'm trying out a very SLOW Killer without a map offering. Sometimes I want insurance. Who are you (or any of us) to tell Killers what they should not be using? A better question is whether or not you and your friends, after getting NOED after NOED, took the time to put in Totem-hunting Perks and started cleansing them all right along with Generators. It sounds like it is time for you to start doing that secondary objective.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163359#Comment_2163359
'Thousands upon thousands of players have managed to deal with it'
But that doesn't mean they should. Bad mechanisms are bad mechanisms. Much like Warframe deleted so many aspects of its pet system because they were just grievances. Just because people dealt with it didn't mean they enjoyed it.
And if basically everyone is saying 'camping sucks', then camping is an issue from a game design perspective and should be addressed.
'Just rush gens' is nice in theory, but in execution in general play it still nets the killer 2 kills because there's not enough time in an uncoordinated team to do all five gens in two hookstates.
It should just be punished more heavily than it is. Slow down the hook while the killer is nearby and not in a chase. And before someone says 'they tried that and it got abused': The 'abuse' was forcing the killer not to camp. That's just using the system as intended; to prevent camping.
What do you not understand about "Player Agency?" Killers are Players too, just like you. They want the same options to make choices as anyone else. Artificial constraints which force them to play like the Ghosts in an old Pac Man game will simply cost us Killers. The game does not work without at least one Killer for every four Survivors. If you reduce them to having less agency than the Survivors, they simply won't play. I wouldn't blame them. The mechanics are fine. Survivors just need to step up and accept that there isn't going to be any Deus Ex Machina from the DEV to fix their problems for them. This is the game; if you don't enjoy it, you know where the door is located.
I play both Survivor and Killer in equal measure. I manage, playing SOLO I might add, to escape more often than I die on the hook. I have the same probability of running into the niche Killer tactics we are discussing as anyone else. I am, by no means, an awesome Survivor. So if I can manage and get by with a little help from my friends in the match, so can you (and everyone else). After five years, the DEV repeatedly stating those tactics are valid and aren't changing, and countless people managing to get by just fine, I think it is time to accept the obvious and tackle the problem in the ONLY productive manner. YOU are the only part of this equation you have power over. Thus, YOU are the one who will have to find solutions in the match.
-
There are already a number of in-game solutions to camping. No mechanical changes are necessary. Seriously, who said you are guaranteed to every get off a hook, or that rescues would be stress free? Why do you think Borrowed Time exists or the Styptic Agent? You should all know about protection hits, shoulder saves, and even taking a hook in tactical trade right? This game has been around since 2016; camping has likewise been around as a tactic since the start. Thousands upon thousands of Players have managed to deal with it; you can too. The reason Dead by Daylight is successful is it is centered on Player agency, i.e. we are not Bots but flesh and blood people who exercise choice over what we do in the game. Situations, just like life, are sometimes unfair and hard. Nobody enjoys their time on the hook, but sometimes you simply suck it up and buy as much time for your team as you can, knowing that you are going to probably die on that hook. Next time it might be someone else. Your team might even surprise you and yank you off safely right from under the nose of that Killer. It happens all the time.
Threads like this are a waste of time. If even 10% of the energy spent on whining, moaning, and groaning about Killer tactics on this forum was spent practicing solutions in game, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.
-
Hrm, perhaps I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. I'll rethink it again; done. I still think the current version is fine. You guys will just have to take your chances working objectives. :)
-
@glitchboi said:
Like holy, I love it. I love the design of it, the atmosphere. Plus I love the yellow in it, it's like how Autohaven had so much green. I just wanted to put this out. I think it might be my favorite map rework by far. Well ######### done.
I can't agree more. The attention to detail, particularly in the Thompson House is excellent. I loved hanging out in the Kitchen while waiting for people to make basement rescue runs. :) The map is very pretty.
-
@Sluzzy said:
I was actually looking forward a little to using Lucky Break but not now. A 1-time use perk that depends on the killer to close their eyes to get any value is a hard pass for me and seems very ridiculous. The devs obviously listened to killer mains again and are scared to give survivors any good perks. Tinkerer certainly wasn’t nerfed when it was obvious how busted it is.
All someone has to do is look at all the godly killer perks, with powerful effects, and can be used multiple times without question. Tinkerer is literally unavoidable and is multiple uses and is a free win and with only 2 survivors are left as it causes a stalemate. A perk shouldn’t guarantee wins. It made it to live as is, but Lucky Break is most likely only a 1-time use and it’s a dead perk. Lucky Break shouldn’t have a timer or at least have a long one to give you time to evade and heal. 45 seconds is literally nothing.
Huntress was proudly left in a busted state while only nerfing her one addon. Freddy can still teleport to the survivor objective with BBQ. Buffed another licensed killer.
Why wasn’t a licensed survivor buffed?
Very disappointed in the update and the lack of equality.
Imagine that; Sluzzy doesn't think the new Perk is good enough. Fess up Sluzzy, you think the Killers should have to close their eyes after hitting you and stand still and count to ten with hands in their pockets before they can start looking. I looked in both the Survivors Rulebook for Killers and the equally inane Killers Rulebook for Survivors and your picture is in both next to the definition of "entitled."
-
@MissKitty95 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2163207#Comment_2163207
Not at all I’m not asking for long loops, I sometimes do like to play stealth aswell, not just run the killer, even debris to hide behind little things are being removed, tiles & debris I have no screenshots to hand but I had a game yesterday we’re one gen spawned in a corner with literally a tree and all around it nothing ran for at least 2 tiles it was just random trees the odd tire stack and fire barrels with just nothing near it at all, I’m for maps changing in the ways the tiles are not the same exact same every single game it gives variety but I’m just noticeing a lot more areas of the maps which are empty areas
Well, I'll hold off judgement until I get at least ten more games in on those Coldwind maps. So far all the ones I've had were so full of terrain that it was impossible to run in a straight line in some areas of the map. :) I might have just been getting good spawns. I'll give you another review in a few days.
-
Really? I had exactly the opposite experience in the new cornfields. I loved all the terrain allowing me to hide and lose the Killer. Not everything has to be an endless loop from tile to tile. The new maps force a mixed approach of immersion and looping, which isn't a bad thing.
-
@MJ_Out said:
We could expand the stun time for some seconds I guess. Maybe from 5 to 10 seconds. I ran in DS since the nerf just one time because the guy was running behind me for half a minute or something.
No. Why do so many of you feel that your unhook should always be stress free and any attempt by the Killer to intercede should somehow be punished. It is up to you and your teammates to execute safe rescues. Where do you think Survivor skill comes in? It isn't doing Generators. It isn't cleansing Totems. The primary skillset of Survivors is knowing when to milk a hook for more Generator time, when to go for the rescue, how many to dispatch, and so on. It is about total situational awareness. Some Players appear to feel that once hooked they should simply be able to get unhooked and move off and the Killer must stand there with his/her hands in pockets. Please be reasonable. DS is a great tool. Combined with safe rescues and or an unhooker that is ready to take the protection hit (or even the hook) it can ensure you at least get a good running start. The rest is up to you.
-
@RoboMojo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2162439#Comment_2162439
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2162442#Comment_2162442
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2162415#Comment_2162415
Glad to know I'm not going crazy lol. Hopefully it stays like this! The game feels really good to play now. Credit where credit is due, Devs. Ya did good.
Agreed; I like the new smoother action. I just have to adjust to it. I had finally gotten my timing right to nip 360s in the bud and now I have to find the new sweet spot. Murphy's Law.
-
@Mandy said:
I must admit that lobby was one of my favourites, I loved the theme of it.
I liked it but without a map of those back alleys and fire escapes, it was kind of a letdown at the same time. They really should have released a map with him.
-
It isn't just you. It is so smooth that I was having trouble landing hits on people doing 360s. I'm going to have to learn my timing all over again because something is clearly different.
-
@Northener1907 said:
Title. DS is not stopping anything. If killer wants tunnel you, they do not care about 5 seconds stun. After that tunnel starting again. So actually why this perk is here?
We are calling it "anti-tunnel perk" but it seem like not working for that. So again, why that perk is here? And why people saying "if killers are tunnelling you, use DS."
It was never intended as anything more than a second chance, a brief respite the Survivor might be able to use for another attempt to reach safety, a new tile to work, or perhaps have the other Survivors help with a getaway. It serves as a mild deterrent to the Killer, perhaps just enough to have them choose the unhooker over the recently unhooked. Expecting more out of it is silly; it wasn't designed to do anything more than pay lip service to the original Halloween film. We spend too much time projecting what we want onto the Perks, rather than simply using what is there.
However, to play the Devil's Advocate, I will point out that DS is more effective the more Survivors in the same match bring it along. The reason it seems less effective now is in part confirmation bias and in part because lots of people stopped bringing it because they couldn't do objectives in the Killer's face anymore. The big drop in people taking it has emboldened Killers to feel less concern about grabbing the recently unhooked. So, the mild deterrent has suffered because now fewer people are taking it. If more people start taking it again, that same mild deterrent will come back.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160956#Comment_2160956
I don't wanna go and respond to all of this because it's pretty well written but also pretty long so I'll vibe with this one section.
"I have to ask how it can be done that you won't feel it is just a token? How much will be enough?"
In my opinion, not much has to be done. Take David King's lore for example, a place where a heterosexual relationship can be found. "He can't go to his ex, she doesn't want to see his face" or something along those lines. All they'd have to do is change "She" to "He". It's not a big deal. It's a throwaway line showing how alone he is. But we're it he, it'd also be a representation of a homosexual relationship in the lore.
And that's all we really want, from speaking to people. Or, most of us anyway. Equal status with heterosexual characters and relationships, even if there isn't as much. Just changing one simple pronoun.
NB people could easily be represented just by using they/them pronouns. Trans people is a topic I don't feel educated well enough on to discuss so I'll leave it to actual transgender people to talk about how best to represent them.
It's nothing major that has to be done, just a single pronoun change can make a world of difference.
We wouldn't lose out on any Bugfixes because the lore team and development team are seperate. There's no opportunity cost here to having a character use they/them or date someone of the same gender in a one-off line in terms of game development.
And I think that is where the BEhavior (the DEV) are headed so shortly this can be a non-issue. Some nagging part of me thinks that you and I, being rather moderate overall, will both be kind of surprised (and annoyed) when it doesn't become a non-issue once they do address it and throw that representation in. That cynical side of me can't help but feel (based on past experiences) that the issue will simply balloon more each time it gets addressed. Knock on wood, I hope that isn't the case. I'd like to be happily surprised. Time will tell.
-
I don't have the time or patience to catch up the two hundred or so posts that have happened since I first weighed in on this topic. I stated at the start that I prefer the sexual preferences of the various Killers and Survivors to be left blank so anyone and everyone can fill in the blanks as they see fit. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the game or even the Lore for that matter. The entity doesn't care about sexual preference, nor do the Killers. If anything a pretty good number of both roles are asexual, i.e. their sexual identity is less important to them than what kind of coffee they drink. Consider Jake, a guy so anti-social he dropped off the map and went into the wild solo in the Lore. Clearly sexuality is not his top priority. Myers is a human body inhabited by pure evil that simply kills for its own unknowable reasons, and sexuality doesn't come into it. Over and over again in the Lore we see the subject skirted because most of these people are driven by other things near and dear to them. Do you see the point I'm making? I think this was a wise choice on the part of BEhavior originally, and I wish they had never veered at all because we wouldn't even be having this conversation otherwise. What is more, they barely veered at all.
I want to stress that I think bigots are the lowest form of human life. I think our individual value should be determined by fiat, ourselves alone. The demons of external validation are always a work, and we would all do better to immunize ourselves against them. It is because I think personal preferences are just that.... PERSONAL... that I prefer those fill in the blanks on our fictional people. I think it being fill in the blank illustrates better that things like ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc. are not an appropriate way to judge people. Left as blanks, it means they are taken out of the equation entirely and shown to be false measures. People are who they are and none of us should care nor be chiming in. Sadly, this has now become another issue and the blanks are going to get filled in. Many of you are too young to remember when the movie Basic Instinct was released. I am using it for my next example because it is about a Killer. It was a smart, edgy movie that illustrated that there are sociopaths out there. What was innovative for the film was that the Killer was not only a woman, she was also Bisexual (or a Lesbian). Her sexuality wasn't the cause of her dark behavior; it was the least important thing about her.... and yet....
There was a HUGE explosion of unhappy people who stated how offended they were that the Killer was Bisexual/Lesbian because it implied that all such people are deviant sociopaths. The movie didn't say this of course, but that was the rallying cry. Do you see where I'm going with this? So let's fast forward back to Dead by Daylight. If we are going to fill in the blanks now, and make sexual preferences a more important part of the Lore, how much representation will be required? I'm not asking that to be an ass; it is an important question. If they just throw in one Survivor and one Killer from under the LGBQT umbrella... won't that just be tokenism? Which types that fall under that umbrella will be represented? Or will we need a Killer and Survivor of each? We can't just have Killers of each because that would imply that everyone under the LGBQT umbrella is a murdering psycho. Do you see why I think this is one big can of worms. There is no win scenario here, only a furthering of our own group focus on something that is largely personal.
I want to comment on something personal now, which I don't generally do. I am a strong believer that personal preferences are... well... PERSONAL. I don't think any of you really care what I desire, believe, or want out of life. You have enough to do with your own goals and ambitions. Even so, I'm going to make this one time exception to talk about something personal because I think it pertains to this issue. I am not a Christian; I am a Pagan. You wouldn't know it by looking at me. Nothing about how I act or dress would imply it. I'm just your average, everyday person going about his business in the world. To know that my religious beliefs are part of a minority, you would have to ask. But here is the rub, I'm not hiding in the so-called "broom closet" or any such nonsense. I just don't feel the need to put my personal beliefs on display. I don't begrudge others their desire to be louder, but I personally just don't see the point. I'm not asking for representation among the Survivors, the Killers, or demanding the entity be defined in some sort of religious context that validates my own cosmology. Do you see where I'm going with this? If I want (and choose) I can easily apply my beliefs to the blanks that the various fictional characters provide. Because these things are not addressed, I can assume whatever I want. Ironically enough, I assume most people who know me in real life apply such assumptions to me and it is no skin off my nose.
A lot of people have chimed in on this subject, and it quickly became heated. That is unfortunate. While I understand that a lot of people don't feel represented, I have to ask how it can be done that you won't feel it is just a token? How much will be enough? Will we all agree when we can't agree on anything. Will the time and labor it takes to fill in the blanks here be well spent when it will be contending with the time and labor the DEV could be spending on addressing all those annoying bugs, exploits, optimization, balance, and so on that we constantly scream about? I'm asking these questions because they need to be asked. What will we be gaining (if anything) and what will we be giving up to gain it? I want to end on a less serious note, what does Nea secretly being the Entity say about this whole debate?
-
@Demogorgeouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160046#Comment_2160046
Also, david had a girlfriend and was super homophobic type. Hes def str8
Or is he? How do you know she isn't his beard, and his super homophobic attitude isn't a front? That isn't unheard of either is it? Again, why is this important? Seriously, leave it undefined and you can fill in whatever blanks you want. I think BEhavior has a lot more important things to do in regards to the game than this.
-
@Demogorgeouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160035#Comment_2160035
Nurse was married to a man, wasnt wraitqh so ishouldve worded that better. And wraith had a wife
True, but since when has being married been a 100% accurate measure of sexual preference? :) Again, I think this entire notion, that our fictional skins for Survivors and Killers need their sexual urges defined is unimportant. You can have any one of these fictional people be as you want them in this regard. It doesn't require codification.
-
@Demogorgeouse said:
I really wish dbe would hurry up with the character. Weve gotten so much hetero representation, why not the LGBTQ community too? Its been almost a year, and oh boy is BHVR taking their time.
As far as I know the sexual preferences for the various Survivors and Killers isn't specifically stated. There are one or two exceptions, like the Nurse who is married but for the most part BEhavior takes no stance (nor shows much interest) on where their fictional people fall. So you can apply whatever preferences YOU WANT to whomever you want and have whatever representation you require to be happy. Knock yourself out.
-
@Pepaman said:
How do you guys counter SWF groups? Its super frustrating when they're well coordinated and all body block hooks!!
There isn't any magic bullet anyone here can give you. The long and the short of it is that not all SWF are created equal, with some being crazy good, coordinated Seal Team Six style players, while others stink. What is true, however, is that SWF have a competitive edge. The information then can pass between one another using their 5th Perk (Comms) provides more valuable intelligence than all other info Perks in the game combined. The longer a particular SWF play together, the more coordinated they will become. That is commonsense.
As some others have already stated, you deal with them primarily by playing hard, giving 100% and treat the game against them the same as you would anyone else. Fair or unfair, you simply have to be better than them. You have to overcome the additional competitive edge. I hope, one day, that they will balance SWF by unlocking a 5th Perk slot for the Killer whenever they face a 3+ SWF. I think that should be tested first before adding additional objectives (like say an extra required Generator) for such groups. Hopefully giving the Killer one more Perk will do the job.
I digress. There are some things you can do to mitigate a SWF's advantage, but most of them are extremely difficult and have no margin for error. Since SWF share information, you can feed any one of them info (let the see you going one direction, etc.) and the entire group will react accordingly. As I stated before, it is easier said than done. It can be done though; I can attest to that from personal experience. Stealth Killers are more efficient for this purpose because it is harder for the SWF to pinpoint your location and share it. That isn't a great comfort if you don't play a Stealth Killer, but it is true. I love to play Spooky Myers (also called Jump Scare Myers) and I can assure you that he is far more effective against a SWF than when I play a standard Myers.
Another thing you can do is play against type. Be unpredictable. The more devastating SWF are like well-oiled machines and have a fair amount of wisdom built up. In addition to keeping eyes on you and sharing information, they have rituals and processes that they have built up playing together. They have plans which are based on normal, predictable Killer behavior. This gives you some leeway to throw a monkey wrench in if you can figure out their patterns. Another thing you can do is play in a SWF yourself. It is important to understand the mindset and the advantage. You have to know how it works to counter it.
-
@KerJuice said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159931#Comment_2159931
That is an excellent point. However as killer, I defer to the old “Do unto others...” quote, cause I don’t like how it feels when it’s done to me. Sometimes I get legit mad at a particular player who keeps pulling someone off in front of me intentionally. I make sure they die- while letting the other player(s) escape the match.
And I can completely respect you exercising your Player agency to hold yourself back. I don't think anyone takes issue with individual Killers choosing what they will and won't do. What is important, however, is that we don't start to expect that other people be held to our individual codes of behavior. We should not be giving Killers or Survivors grief or getting salty unless they actually break the rules. All any Player has to abide by, in Dead by Daylight, to be a good sport is:
- Don't cheat, either by hack or lag spike.
- Don't disconnect; if you start a game, finish it.
- Be humble in victory and gracious in defeat.
As long as my opponents abide by these three things they deserve nothing but my respect and courtesy. Neither I, you, or anyone else has the right to lecture them or whine away about their behavior. The rules are known; we don't get to add extra ones. Any morals and morays we wish to apply to ourselves are fine though, and I commend you on them.
-
Dead by Daylight can never be "perfectly" balanced. There are far too many variables, not the least of which is Player agency, to have it laid out neatly like a game of Chess. That being said, it can be roughly balanced well enough, and I submit that it will always be an ongoing process. I'm not an apologist for the DEVs but I think, all things considered, they do a competent enough job given what they face. I know for fact that I could not do better, nor could any of you. We all have our opinions and preferences, but we should not flatter ourselves too much in assuming that we actually know or understand the game better than they do. We also have to remember that for us the game is just a luxury item, a diversion. It is their bread and butter; who do you think has a greater vested interest in keeping the game going?
-
@KerJuice said:
Regardless of the term, it’s pretty much a dick move. I used to do that a lot as killer and had the same EXACT thought process, until I got to feel it done to me quite a few times as survivor- so I stopped. When you’re on hook, you have no control over who pulls you off or when. There are newbies and jerks who will pull you off right after a hook, or bring the killer towards you while in chase and unhook you. It’s not fun to get insta downed. There’s games where you literally don’t get to play cause the killer just comes back, downs you, and hooks you again. This mechanic is flawed. Someone once joked to me you should be able to kick survivors in the face if you don’t want to be unhooked at that moment. I laughed at first but then thought- he’s right! And yes, there are perks like BT and DS, but killers just wait out the time for BT, and DS is circumvented by getting slugged. So now you get to lay on the floor for a few while the killer hovers and chases teammates away. Good times.
Now this is a good post. I agree; it would be nice if the hooked Survivor could choose NOT to be unhooked. I rather like the idea of kicking the person trying an unsafe rescue in the face. But you kind of hit on a key point here, that the problem isn't the Killer but rather a Survivor that is causing the situation. It is the unsafe rescue which is stupid, not the Killer simply pursuing his/her objective.
For example, every now and then some moron goes to the zoo and climbs into an animal enclosure. More often than not it is some dangerous animal they have decided to commune with. When the tiger (or whatever) kills the moron, nobody blames the tiger. It was just doing its job. The tiger didn't create the situation; it was just there. Most bad experiences that Survivors have can be traced back to the actions of other Survivors. Killers are just doing their job, and living up to their name.
-
@alaenyia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159783#Comment_2159783
I am literally an English Language major, so for one group consensus is a language changer, in the actual world well beyond this tiny pond. Second there is no excuse for playing toxic and tunneling people out of the game. If you bothered to read my post you would see that I fully admit it is not against the rules in any way. I just said that ENTITLED killers have no right to clutch their pearls after a match when survivors call them on there purposeful toxic behavior. Basically, if you want to play cheap, lazy and skill-free the devs won't stop you but just own it instead of coming here complaining about being attacked.
I have a Masters in English; we both know such things are irrelevant to this discussion. As you point out, this tiny pond doesn't get to to define squat. Moreover, since we share an interest in the English language, I trust you understand the definition of a glittering generality? The term "toxic" is meaningless, a glittering generality intended to invoke an emotional response with no actual support or reasoning behind it. People use the word "toxic" to define anything and everything they don't like. Thus, there is no agreed upon meaning to the word. Use of glittering generalities is a cheap, lazy way to simulate making an actual argument, a skill-free rhetorical trick.
For the record, I play both Survivor and Killer in equal measure. I did not complain about being attacked. I pointed out that stupid people use incorrect vocabulary and like to whine and blame others for their personal failures. Regardless of whether I'm playing Killer or Survivor, I own my failures with the same passion that I take credit for my victories. When a match ends and the Killer destroyed me and my fellow Survivors, I give said person a congratulations and thank them for the game. When Survivors destroy me as the Killer, I do the same. There is no such thing as entitled Killers or entitled Survivors, because that is a false dichotomy. There are entitled Players, however, and you clearly are one.
-
@alaenyia said:
The definition of tunneling has evolved in the nearly 4 years I have been playing. It does indeed mean downing a fresh offhook. Playing cheap and lazy for your own ease, thus ruining the game for another player, is unacceptable. It is not against the rules, so to be honest you can do it. But at least own that it was trash and that the heat at the end of the game, that you earned with your bad game play. If people are constantly balling you out for how you play it is probably not them.
No; it doesn't. It hasn't "evolved" or any such nonsense. Whining, mewling morons continue to call anything they don't like Camping or Tunneling or Slugging. They do this because they want to blame their personal failures on something else, and try to grief the Killer at the same time. The point of these, incorrect, accusations is to lie oneself. Tunneling has the exact same meaning now that it did then, there are just more STUPID people who can't be bothered to be accurate in the use of terms. There is no such animal as the term you are trying to define, because the DEVs have stated that going after the recently unhooked person is a completely legal, valid choice. It is just called, hunting. Get it? We don't get to redefine the terms anyway we see fit.
-
@latinfla4 said:
I am tired of getting red ranks as a green rank killer so any suggestions...Face camping bubba? Trickster spamming knives? Static blasting doc?
Hrm. My advice, and take it with a grain of salt, is that you should relish pulling those Red Ranks. Take your lumps now, you will get better much faster than fighting people at your own skill level, and be the person that gives the lumps later. I can say this with experience. Fight every match to the bitter end, even if you do no more than get looping practice out of it. We learn more from our failures than we do our victories.
-
Ok, I rethought it. Naw... I like it how it is now.
-
@Gardenia said:
I'm playing Jane (my boo) and I was going against a deathslinger and was putting up a really good chase, then he rage quit.
I'm not gloating, I'm just confused because I don't know how quite to feel. I feel good but also sad because the game is really fun when survivors put up a good chase....
Community tell me, am I missing something?
Some people are just bad sports. I see people rage quit, or just plain give up all the time. It is pathetic. There is no shame in getting beat; it is the measure of a person in how they handle losing, and turning that experience into the skills to do better next time.
-
@fr0sty1223 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2158917#Comment_2158917
I’m not pretending to speak for the majority at all. Go look on Reddit or these forums and even ask people in the game you play like I do what they think about camping and tunneling and a majority of them will say it needs to go. That’s just common knowledge at this point. Also the main point of my comment wasn’t about that either but thanks for focusing in on that one part instead of the bigger picture.
The noisy and whiniest of us are not the majority. :) The majority of people who play this game never post here or anywhere else. I hate to break it to you champ but the DEV have validated over and over again (for years now) that Camping and Tunneling are simply tactics and part of Player agency. There are in-game solutions and those are the only ones that matter.
-
@MrDardon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2158902#Comment_2158902
Well, you shouldn't really run into a Myers at all to be honest. Loop him and when you suspect an exotic Add-on like Tombstone or something, play safe. Once he reaches Tier 3, panic run into the nearest locker or animation lock so he can't Mori you.
Also, if you are in the open and a Tier 3 Tombstone Myers is behind you, if you have an Item then drop it when he is right behind you and it will trigger an attack and down you since you are in an animation lock (drop item)
I might have to stop my Snark hunt for a bit. I feel bad about the people who run into me, as that isn't my intention. I want Breakdown Exploiters. :) Ah well. I appreciate the info. I thought I knew a lot about Myers from playing him so extensively. Apparently there is so much I didn't know only rarely playing against him.
-
@fr0sty1223 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2158851#Comment_2158851
And yet a vast majority of people all agree that camping and tunneling need to go. No one wants killers to be weak or not be able to do their jobs, we just want to actually have some counterplay to them trying to kill us. Survivors have 0 ways to end chases and the killer has to decide if he wants to keep chasing and down them or give up and find someone else to chase. A survivor has 0 say in that exchange. Camping and tunneling remove the only hope of us surviving at all and make the game boil down to: how long can I loop the killer before I get downed and he camps me, which is fun for no one because killers don’t like getting looped and survivors don’t like getting camped. Every single player loses out when it comes to camping and tunneling and I really don’t understand why you fail to grasp that.
No, the majority of people do not agree on that. Don't pretend to speak for the majority.
-
@MrDardon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2158887#Comment_2158887
You can also check ingame. It's not a lore reason why his hand is opened, it's because he moves slower.
That's why in Tier 1 his hand is also open, because he moves at 105 %. Judith's Tombstone drops him from 115 % to 106 %. In that case it makes sense that his hand is open.
With Tombstone Piece he still moves at 115 % like normal so his hand is clenched.
Good to know, so I don't know WHAT to advise people on how to know if I have the Tombstone Piece or not. Best advice, DO NOT run towards a Myers in Tier-3 period. :)
-
Hrm. Not entirely clear. That is what I was taught, but if that Tell isn't accurate, I guess I've been lucky that I've always been assuming the worst all this time when I play against him as a Survivor. When I play him as the Killer, obviously, I don't see how my stances look. If the Tell isn't clear, it should be.
-
@MrDardon said:
Tombstone Piece doesn't open your left hand since you don't move slower.
The free hand is on the Judith's Tombstone.
Are you positive? I was always told it is both. I'll go check the Wiki.
-
@Kebek said:
Most survivors don't notice the mori hand (as most surviovrs don't even know tombstones exist that much less how the work or how to counter them) and actually tombstone piece doesn't trigger it, it only appears if you're using the full pink tombstone.
Imo both tombstones should have some other kind of tell (besides that both should trigger mori hand) like for example when you're getting stalked, after 3s very slowly the stalking theme starts playing first silently and gets progressively louder.
That would make it so survivors can't get suprised by a tombstone if they know how they work and what to look out for.
That's not a bad idea.... or have his free arm out wide clearly like he is going to grab and more hunched. But the music would be great.
-
@beached said:
This is actually a great way to deal with the breakdown bug lmao.
I thought so. I never use the Add-on so I figured why not go Snark hunting and dispense some justice. :)