MrPenguin
MrPenguin
About
- Username
- MrPenguin
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,543
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Agt_Scully said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219685#Comment_3219685
I think if you are able to get all 4 kills out of it then tunneling is efficient. But from what I've seen, Killers who tunnel usually only get 1 or 2 kills from that tactic, making it inefficient. Then again, it seems like those tunneling start doing so towards the end game so I'm not sure how effective tunneling would be from the start.
Well, the reason why so many do tunnel and camp and why its recommended so much is because it gets them better results.
I had a friend who would camp and tunnel every game because when they didn't they did way worse. So, like you said they normally only got 1-2 kills because they weren't that great at the game. But when they didn't they got 0 kills.
Now take a player who can get 1-2 kills without tunneling. Now when they do tunnel, they'll get 3-4.
I don't normally tunnel and camp because I just don't find camping fun and I have more fun going after everyone than focusing someone out. But the few times I do tunnel, either accidentally or otherwise, that's usually a 4K or 3K + Hatch. Reducing the survivor team from a 1v4 to a 1v3 is just too big of an upside to not be doing it ASAP if you're win focused.
Just because tunneling is the most effective strat, doesn't mean its a guarantee. You can still do poorly while tunneling, it's just your best shot. Survivors focus gens all the time, they still lose games. It's just their best shot at winning.
-
@Agt_Scully said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219655#Comment_3219655
Except 3 gens popping after the first chase is nothing but the Survivors playing the objective as the game was designed. Anything otherwise is game-throwing.
Exactly.
Tunneling is the killer doing their objective efficiently. Anything otherwise is throwing.
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219229#Comment_3219229
I guess you don't understand how all those small benefits compound. Break pallets faster means closing time is quicker. hit recovery means closing time is faster. Shorter dash time when hit by survivors means...you guessed it faster closing time...and in case you as a killer kind of suck they gave faster time to get into bloodlust. All of those things together did have a big effect to shorten chases. AND pallet repair times got longer...which also helps camping.
How does this help and reward the killer for not tunneling and camping specifically?
Those benefits are the same, camp and tunnel or not.
That's not a "carrot", that's not a reward or benefit you get for not tunneling/camping, that's just general killer buffs.
-
@Malkraz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3217650#Comment_3217650
It's actually embarrassing that you still can't even see your team's perk loadouts in the lobby. BHVR is so stingy on making any changes that aren't simple numbers until they're basically forced to.
That's not true.
They also don't like making simple number changes until they're basically forced to.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/349507/gen-rushing-camping-tunneling
Why is camping and tunneling ridiculous at 5 gens specifically? Can somebody explain that to me?
It's the same level of ridiculous as 3 gens popping after the first chase.
One just get villainized a lot more.
-
@Orochi said:
Survivors HAVE to do gens.
Killers, no matter how necessary they feel it might be, do NOT HAVE to camp and tunnel.
That's literally it. Sorry you're getting "gen rushed" but what the hell else are Survivors supposed to? Just sit around and let the Killer get a couple hooks before they sit on a gen? Come on now.
I'm also getting extremely tired of killers using examples that are just super optimized SWFs. Like that is really happening every game, stuff that probably only happens 1 in 100 games.
That's like saying survivors do not have to finish the gen they're on.
If you want the killer to not finish the kill they already started working on, then survivors need to not finish the gen they already started working on.
But survivors don't leave or slowdown their gens for the killer, so why should the killer leave and slowdown their kills for the survivors?
You want the killer to slowdown their objective? Ok fine, do the same.
If you don't want to do that then don't ask the killer to either. Either both are inefficient, or both are efficient. You cant do "efficient for me but not for thee".
-
@Agt_Scully said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3217685#Comment_3217685
Completely agree. If the goal of Survivors is to repair enough gens to open the gate and escape, why would they not try to do this as quickly as possible? A team loading up on tool boxes and add-ons provided by the game is merely playing the objective as designed. It would make no sense if they intentionally used perks and add-ons to slow down gen progression and get themselves killed. In fact, that would be game-throwing. We may as well add negative labels to Survivors who heal ("Med Packers"), Survivors who unhook others ("Game Savers"), and Killers who attempt to sacrifice Survivors on hooks ("Hook Killers"). The point is that "gen rushing" is a required action in the game for Survivors whereas camping/tunneling is not the goal for Killers (their purpose is to sacrifice all the Survivors to the Entity - not target a single Survivor). Now those Survivors who stay on a gen instead of going for a save are not what I would call "gen rushing." They could easily be hiding in a locker, cleansing a totem, walking past a hooked Survivor as well - that is selfish play in order to pad individual stats rather than "gen rushing."
The goal of survivors is to finish 5 gens. the goal of the killer is to kill 4 survivors.
Do you work on a gen 33% of the way and then leave to a new 0% one? No
So why should the killer get a kill 33% of the way then stop to start a new 0% one?
It goes both ways. If you want killers to be inefficient at their objective you need survivors to do the same with theirs. Double standards like this will get us nowhere.
-
Make it block gens instead of incapacitate, that way its hits Solo and SWF equally.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219439#Comment_3219439
I think killer should be around C-B tier if the killer is bad at using their power but should be A-tier if the killer is good at using their power. Dredge falls in category of being cookiecutter dbd killer where survivor skill matters more then killer gameplay. In other words, underwhelming killer. @FrostySeal post details dredge perfectly.
They are put into tiers assuming you're good at using their power. If you're good at Dredge he's C-B. If not he's probably D or F.
But yeah I agree with what both of you said. His power is underwhelming and survivors skill matters more.
I was just saying he's too weak and that's why you don't see him more. People just get tired of being limited to only being able to beat subpar teams because their character handicaps them. If you want a killer to be popular long term they need to at least be A tier.
-
@Malkhrim said:
I see people here saying the Dredge is weak. That's not true at all. It's a very balanced killer, around Demogorgon's level. The thing is, its power is all about mindgames, so it's a bit tricky to play and map reliable, and a mistake might accidentally teleport you across the map, which can be a little frustrating. But get the timing right, know when to teleport and when to fake it, and the Dredge is a really fun and satisfying killer. Depending on the map, might feel like the second best m1 killer in the game (and only the second because the Cenobite can be really strong with his best add-ons and in the hands of a skilled player).
The only thing I think it's unnecessary and should be changed is the loud directional noise the Dredge emits at close range. It should only make that noise during Nightfall, not the whole time.
Demo level is balanced? Since when?
Both Demo and Dredge are around C-B tier or so. Balanced for a killer is around A+ tier or above, since that's about where good survivors sit.
Unless you mean balanced as in in-between all the killers power levels. In which case yes, but that average is pretty weak compared to survivors.
Both killers are pretty weak. People get tired of losing just because of who they picked, cool or not.
-
3 gens don't just win you the game, they are also the survivors fault mainly.
Slugging is attempting to be addressed with basekit UB. There's better ideas for sure, that's the point of discussing, but you don't even give anyone the chance and just yell "you don't understand".
-
@Hex_iButt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219344#Comment_3219344
Example 2 IMO is the better of the two, especially if you adjust the sacrifice timer to compensate.
Ex 1, even with the haste bonus/penalty I doubt killers with the intent on camping would really do anything with it. The penalty does help to make sure the tunneled survivor tries to get away, but depending on the killer (Nurse, Billy, Huntress, any killer with high mobility/range basically) would still be able to somewhat continue their tunnel vision spree.
They were just mock examples, not serious finalized ideas.
I also personally like the idea of a shared hook pool a lot more, it gets rid of tunneling being a go to to begin with. Playing the entire game as a 4v1 just sounds more appealing. The survivors either win together or lose together, also encouraging more teamwork and less selfish plays. At least in concept.
-
@Dead_Harder said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219344#Comment_3219344
Buddy in the example i gave there was no camping or tunneling. You understand that there are more ways to play this game than camping tunneling or 12 hooking right?
Nvm im done. Think as shallowly as you want mate, you arent hurting any one.
Buddy in the example you gave me you were focusing 2 players out. My example still stands as it takes that into account.
Instead of being vague and saying "other ways to play" maybe bring them up? So far only focusing players out and camping have been discussed, so that's what I'm talking about.
It's fine if you're done because you can't comprehend the idea, you're not hurting anyone.
-
@Dead_Harder said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218909#Comment_3218909
I dont think you understand. No matter what they do, 12 hooking will still be by far the hardest method. That means no matter what they do, if 12 hooking is viable, basically everything else is so incredibly easy that there is basically no point in playing the game.
For example if its viable to hook survivors 1 by 1 and still win, if i focus on hooking only 2, i would be dominating the game because thats about 2-3 times more efficient than hooking people 1 by 1 and im not camping or tunneling any one so im not getting hit by any possible nerf to tunneling or camping.
12 hooking should never be viable unless you are just smurfing.
I don't think you understand.
We make 12 hooking viable and punish camping and tunneling to the point those are worse.
We just can't make those worse without 12 hooking being viable because then the killer has no avenue to win.
There's def a way to make it work.
mock example: each time you hook a different survivor than the last you gain a 5% stackable haste. This resets upon hooking or downing the same survivor again before getting everyone to the same hook state. While camping, gen speeds are increased by 300%. If you hook the same survivor twice in a row you suffer a 10% stackable speed penalty.
ex 2: A shared hook pool to eliminate tunneling someone out even being a thing in conjunction with other changes could also work.
You should get the idea now, it just takes more work than just leaving camping and tunneling as is. Might require a redesign of parts of the core hook/death system, but it's possible and worth it.
-
@Dead_Harder said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218642#Comment_3218642
I think 12 hooking should never be viable as it would mean basically all other methods are basically oppressive.
That's why they want to nerf those other methods ???
If 12 hook isn't viable, and other methods get nerfed, what's left?
Its one or the other. I'd rather have 12 hook games idk about you.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218898#Comment_3218898
So you mean they do it because they were dying on hook and no one was coming to save them? That’s a lot different than the scenario painted by your original comment.
I think he means they only care if they "win" as in whatever their definition of win is. Some people will DC simply because "I'm mad I got downed, DC".
To them a "win" is never being downed. They only care about their own fun basically. The moment its not fun for them "screw the other players I'm gonna DC".
-
@Hexonthebeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218846#Comment_3218846
Ok good that I missed this experience.
Not a programmer but I think its very depressing if you have an idea, create something and then it's not balanced.
That's expected, its very hard to get something balanced the first go around.
The real problem is that they don't correct it after. It just sits there for (usually) months if not years.
-
@Hexonthebeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218834#Comment_3218834
Only played the updated one.
It was usually survivor favored like 90% of the maps are, nothing special lol.
They do need better map designers thats for sure. It shouldn't be this hard to find a map thats ok.
-
@Hexonthebeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218824#Comment_3218824
Crotus Prenn is a nice map, too if you get the location with maurice.
Yeah that one usually isn't too bad in my experience since they updated it.
-
@Hexonthebeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218813#Comment_3218813
You need to destroy the breakable wall behind the godhouse. Then you can pretend to run up the stairs and take the shortcut. Not working everytime.
Autohaven is a balanced map too, slightly too big but it has sometimes a devastating 3 gen, too
Like you said that doesn't work every time, especially against good players who can look behind them and/or know about it. So in the end its still majorly in the survivors hands and favor.
3 gens aren't a reliable balance point, as I said it's the survivors fault for letting it happen.
-
@Hexonthebeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218801#Comment_3218801
Ok sry^^ Then you need to hope that the basement is in the center. Which is mostly there.
And i cant understand that haddonfield is a survivor sided map. empty streets are nice to spot the survivor and 3 gen is a win.
spotting the survivor doesn't matter when they run to a god house. Spotting the survivor isn't a big deal in general, hence stealth generally being a poor strategy.
3 gens are the survivors fault, so not really something you can plan for. Especially when it takes ages to down anyone because god houses, so you're going to lack in pressure.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218794#Comment_3218794
Unless you're reporting from the future; god, no.
Anyway, Haddonfield is technically balanced in that it's got elements that really, really suck for both sides? It is better than before, which is more than I can say for RPD.
I'd say the god houses, which are usually right next to the gens, are a lot more impactful than the streets that can just be run across in a few seconds, swinging the map into the survivors favor.
-
@Hexonthebeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218797#Comment_3218797
Just get the offering that the basement is in the center and you have a great map control. Not in all cases and with all killer, but it can be hard for the surivors.
how are you going to use the basement offering for the map, when you don't know if you're going to get the map and can't use a map offering since you're using a basement one?
-
@twin187211 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218350#Comment_3218350
Bro I have that hard trophy you get for doing 1 Gen and escaping with no perks you speak of combining the perks together I play solo queue I don't know what the other players doing bro it's not swf every match but the supernatural powers that the killer have is just not enough for you guys right wow a flashlight against a knife would you take them odds yall funny killers
I also have that trophy. That's not the normal match obviously so using that argument is irrelevant.
I also play solo, all my friends stopped playing ~2 years ago. It's still a team based game, not a 1v1.
It's not a sweaty Otz level killer plying Nurse every match.
I guess a 1v4 is just not enough for you guys. Yall funny survivors.
Now, back on topic, it's not "fair" correct? So why do the survivors get 16 perks? Maybe because both sides get different advantages like the killer being able to see the potential 4 items with 8 add-ons they're going up against so they can adjust their build if they need to? They only have 4 perk slots after all.
But if you want to give killers 16 perk slots and 8 add-on slots we can see how that works.
-
Focusing gens = tunneling/camping I agree.
The survivors don't need a whole loadout, they just need to focus on doing gens. Which they do, almost every match. A killer isn't not tunneling just because they didn't bring their strongest possible build.
It's the actions that define it, not the build.
One side being efficient = the other doing the same.
The survivors who say its fine to focus gens, which is the smart play, but not fine to tunnel or camp, which is also the smart play, are hypocrites.
If they want killers to tone down the camping and tunneling, they need to tone down their gen speeds too.
-
@Dead_Harder said:
There is no such thing as gen rushing.
There's no such thing as tunneling, just being smart.
-
@twin187211 said:
I been playing this game for 4 years bro I'm talking from experience not from what I see streamers do or say I completely understand streamers the real Screamers they have advantages cuz they talk to the devs they know a lot of things that we will never know
I've also been playing the game for 4+ years.
I think you're completely wrong. Speaking from experience.
The killer needs advantages over the 4, that's how its supposed to be.
The survivors have 16 perks, 4 items, and 8 add-ons. That's also not under your current framing of "fair", or do you want to limit each survivor to 1 perk each, 1 item on the entire team, and 2 add-ons?
-
I had a 50% yesterday, but it quickly turned to 100% after like, 2-3 matches.
-
@dugman said:
Nurse is the only killer I actively don't play because I can't stand looking at the ground half the match. Wesker's release really emphasizes for me how, even though his ability is strategically weaker than hers but they both essentially lunge forward in straight lines twice in a row, he's a lot more fun to play partly because he keeps his head up after a Bound.
On top of that, she'd also be more new player friendly if they made Plaid Flannel base kit (but also made the Plaid Flannel indicator smaller and less intrusive on the screen, it's kind of distracting sometimes the way it's done).
And finally at the high end her Blink attacks just kind of break the game in some ways. I could probably get behind making her Blink attacks be counted as Special attacks and not basic attacks to rein it in a bit.
So yeah, I'm not a fan, I'd love to see her get a revamp to make her more fun, more new player friendly and also a touch less powerful at the high end.
making her Blink a special attack would at least get rid of Starstruck Nurse.
-
Yup. If it's not Nurse or Blight, you have no excuse losing 90%+ of the time.
-
"Hate" is a strong word. But giving every survivor infinite unbreakable and making Nurse even more oppressive just to sometimes maybe get a 10 second animation n the other 95% of the game isn't worth it to me.
-
I think she needs a rework.
That being said, I don't like that against a good SWF, Blight and Her are your only options. I also don't like the idea of changing her, and Blight being the only option should it not go well, which it overwhelmingly likely wont.
Making the other killers better should take priority over the 6% of the killer roster that can compete IMO.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3216897#Comment_3216897
One of the major problems is that survivors label just about every single killer strategy as unfun, and demand they should be nerfed because they are unfun….. but refuse to acknowledge that survivor strategies might be unfun for the killer.
For killers, going against a SWF with voice communication can be the most unfun thing in the game, because they can get so many extra advantages with voice comms, and the killer isn’t compensated at all for this. Excessive hiding, hook sabotages, flashlight saves, pallet saves, and bodyblocking are also unfun for killers.
But due to massive double standards, survivors think all the unfun killer strategies should be nerfed, but don’t think any of the unfun survivor strategies should be nerfed.
This 100%.
It really damages the image/legitimacy of survivor complaints when people are so used to them being BMing entitled brats throwing around double standards all the time. Not to mention ganging up on the killer in-game chat because there's 4 of them and 1 of the other, so the killer is never right.
Hence the "Survivor rulebook" meme.
Very much "boy who cried wolf", or I guess "survivor who cried toxic", situation.
Not saying there's not valid complaints, but when you have things like "me doing my objective efficiently is fine, you doing yours isn't" attitudes in the majority we're not going to get far.
-
@About8Genjis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210303#Comment_3210303
It is still concerning though. Killer mains would scream as well if it said "61% escape rate" instead.
It's all about causation and what you do with the stats. The main reason why Nurse is so low is cause one is probably going to have a really bad time the first times they play her, which is why her kill rate was the lowest in the stats.
Ofc, 61% COULD say that most survs are just bad, need to "git gud" and are low MMR , but it COULD also mean that the killer role is currently too powerful or dominate in certain areas a little too much.
Considering Pinhead was at the top of the kill bracket with Pig not far behind, I'm going to say it's extremely likely that most of the player base isn't good at the game and its inflating the kill rate to make killers look better than they actually are with competent players.
-
Yikes, all the people trying to use borked statistics as an actual counter argument.
Guess we better nerf Pig, Myers, and Pinhead and Buff Nurse since that's the same data pool their getting the kill rate from.
-
@jajay119 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208344#Comment_3208344
That's not 'technically a tie' at all, not even close. A 2 kill two escape match is defined as a win for both sides by BHVR. Killers feeling like they need a 4k to win and expecting BHVR to build their game around that is a them issue and they're going to live very angry lives until they stop expecting it. So, 61% kill rate taking into account 2 kills is what BHVR are using as successful criteria.
I don't expect to escape every match, I don't expect all survivors to escape every match. That is an example of an exceptionally well played match. A 4k for a killer is the same: result of exceptional play - not I'm just gonna slug these last two people so 'I win'.
I'm pretty sure BHVR said that a 2k is a draw when they discussed MMR.
A draw is balance on both sides. Hence why that's the balance success point, not what defines a win.
-
No.
Skill was thrown to the wind in the emblem system too, it was not hard at all to reach rank 1.
If you played enough you got it.
Could and should MMR be better? Yes absolutely.
We kind of have the same problem with MMR, but to a lesser degree. They need to increase the soft cap to better filter out players.
But it's better than before in my experience.
-
@Brimp said:
Gen speeds not so much. its more tile generation and map size.
It's both.
Gens are too fast for maps, and maps are too strong for gen speeds.
One has to be changed to match the other. Gen speeds is just a number increase. Map changes will take a lot longer, and that's if the devs can get it right, which if recent maps are anything to go by, they can't.
I don't care which, I just want the problem fixed.
-
@deckyr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3204467#Comment_3204467
eruption blocking gens sure would fix the "useless against swf" part, i guess.
Yeah exactly, it affects both equally now.
-
Its sleeping
On a more serious note, they really should increase the soft cap.
-
I think you actually make the situation worse by leaving a gen to stop another regressing. A single survivor will work on a gen faster than it can regress. If it gets to 400% regression that's the same speed as 1 survivor.
The travel time spent would be better just doing your own gen instead.
Eruption though, yeah that hits solo harder with no argument. It should just block the gen instead.
-
Can we just get an FOV slider please.
Stop making it a mechanic.
-
Yeah they should add kindred imo, even if its just survivor auras and/or a very small killer aura range (unaffected by open handed).
Technically it would buff SWF, but not by an amount I think would really change much.
-
@D4RK1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3203530#Comment_3203530
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigot
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Sorry at this point it's pretty clear you're just here as a troll for attention and there's really no intelligent or productive conversation to be had with you. You first take my words completely out of context and twist them to fit your means and get angry at me when I take your words in context and use them against you, then you accuse me of ad hominin right after you do so, "I thought you would be smart enough to not work against your argument".
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3203549#Comment_3203549
I can't really spell it out further for you than the fact that I've been addressing each of your points and providing both a explanation and evidence each time and you've just been saying whatever you can to not be in the wrong. It's honestly a better use of my time to have a conversation with a brick wall, including when you've gone off topic and are attempting to say you're just arguing semantics when it feels more like a smokescreen than anything else. I've literally already directly addressed that "Trying to win is not toxic" is absolutely incorrect. In fact, you've already provided counter arguments to yourself by saying that t-bagging and notification spamming is toxic, considering that literally just trying to overload the killer with information or provoking them is (a toxic) strategy that can be employed to win on the Survivors' side.
If you really wanted to argue just semantics and the definition of "toxic" how come you haven't actually provided a definition you're using to actually further an argument? It's pretty clear you're just here to be contradictory and to try and gaslight people so I'm just going to do us both a favor, save my time and energy, and just stop attempting to actually have a productive conversation with you.
I feel the same way about you bud 👍️
We're just not going to see eye to eye, that's fine.
-
@D4RK1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3203462#Comment_3203462
Well I'm sorry if that really was the entire point of your post and yes, you can certainly criticize that specific part. Though I have been making valid arguments that trying to win can indeed be toxic that you are continuing to brush aside to fit your own agenda. But honestly, in a suggestion forum if your main concern is just semantics, it seems pretty bigoted of you to post just for that. And I'm honestly not sure if you're trying to backtrack to get a one up or if you really are that bigoted.
Again, you might as well have posted "Well it's not" because it would've implied the same thing. Failure in communication includes all sides of the equation. Did I assume what you were saying? Yes. But I was also assuming you'd actually stay on topic. You CAN criticize the title's semantics, but the topic was a manner in which to fix early game facemping/tunneling. Again, this just makes you a bigot.
I like how you're working against your own argument, again that "Trying to win isn't toxic" and mentioning things like t-bagging and notification spamming which can be used to attempt to provoke the killer, but now you're somehow also now accusing me of arguing against my own points? Which I don't see how I would be? They're fixing these issues because it's Toxic in a manner that adversely affects gameplay and people's enjoyment of the game rather than being Toxic just because it's bad manners if you need it fully explained to you. And no, I never said they're fixing it JUST because it's toxic. Also I'm again pointing out that aspects of winning can certainly be toxic, which is what it seems your argument is about. Sorry I assumed you'd be smart enough to glean that from context.
I'm not being disingenuous at all, my line of logic has stayed constant. Sadly you're the one who is trying to pick and choose specific phrases, taking them out of context, twisting them to accommodate your argument, but also concurrently accusing others of doing the same when they're really not. Last I checked I did address the fact that I may have misunderstood your first post considering the context, but again I've pointed out how some aspects of attempting to win CAN be toxic. And again if you simply don't like the manner in which I've been using the word "toxic," then you absolutely are off topic as this discussion was never meant to be an argument on the definition of "toxic."
honestly at this point just change your title to "purposed solution to camping and tunneling" or something, rather than using it as an excuse to say something but then brush off anyone who disagrees because "that's not the post" even though it is part of it.
Your title can still be a statement.
I'm not the only one whose brought it up. If you don't want to discuss it don't include it in your post, title or otherwise.
-
@D4RK1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3203462#Comment_3203462
Well I'm sorry if that really was the entire point of your post and yes, you can certainly criticize that specific part. Though I have been making valid arguments that trying to win can indeed be toxic that you are continuing to brush aside to fit your own agenda. But honestly, in a suggestion forum if your main concern is just semantics, it seems pretty bigoted of you to post just for that. And I'm honestly not sure if you're trying to backtrack to get a one up or if you really are that bigoted.
Again, you might as well have posted "Well it's not" because it would've implied the same thing. Failure in communication includes all sides of the equation. Did I assume what you were saying? Yes. But I was also assuming you'd actually stay on topic. You CAN criticize the title's semantics, but the topic was a manner in which to fix early game facemping/tunneling. Again, this just makes you a bigot.
I like how you're working against your own argument, again that "Trying to win isn't toxic" and mentioning things like t-bagging and notification spamming which can be used to attempt to provoke the killer, but now you're somehow also now accusing me of arguing against my own points? Which I don't see how I would be? They're fixing these issues because it's Toxic in a manner that adversely affects gameplay and people's enjoyment of the game rather than being Toxic just because it's bad manners if you need it fully explained to you. And no, I never said they're fixing it JUST because it's toxic. Also I'm again pointing out that aspects of winning can certainly be toxic, which is what it seems your argument is about. Sorry I assumed you'd be smart enough to glean that from context.
I'm not being disingenuous at all, my line of logic has stayed constant. Sadly you're the one who is trying to pick and choose specific phrases, taking them out of context, twisting them to accommodate your argument, but also concurrently accusing others of doing the same when they're really not. Last I checked I did address the fact that I may have misunderstood your first post considering the context, but again I've pointed out how some aspects of attempting to win CAN be toxic. And again if you simply don't like the manner in which I've been using the word "toxic," then you absolutely are off topic as this discussion was never meant to be an argument on the definition of "toxic."
Now saying something isn't toxic makes someone a bigot? Yikes. I guess you're also a bigot since you called it toxic.
Bigot: "a bigoted person
especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"
I don't think that applies here just because you labeled something as toxic and I disagreed. Although you do like to try and use ad hominin attacks to try and discredit others it seems.
Again, your title is part of your post, its perfectly on point to discuss it on a discussion and feedback forum. You don't get to just chop off a piece of your post and say "that doesn't count, you can't talk about it". Like, why did you include it on your post in a discussion forum if you didn't want it to be open to discussion?
Your muddled, overly defensive, assumption filled, long winded post aren't proving much of anything as, again, you were mainly arguing against a stance I never had. If you didn't assume so much and weren't so defensive maybe we could've have an actual concise focused conversation.
You can be toxic and also try to win sure, but the act of trying to win itself isn't toxic inherently. Therefore, trying to use tunneling and camping to win isn't toxic unless you are purposely malicious while doing so.
Also again, just because it's unfun or you don't like it doesn't make it toxic. You don't seem to be separating the 2.
If your personal understanding of toxic is flawed and you think that someone just trying to win is toxic, then there's not much more to say. You're speaking from a flawed foundation.
-
@D4RK1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3202828#Comment_3202828
I don't see how in the context those separate quotes were taken from you somehow got that what I meant is that they wouldn't change things unless it was toxic? For someone who allegedly dislikes people putting words in their mouth and twisting their words, you honestly as the worst perpetrator of it. When I said "So how come they're doing this if trying to win isn't toxic?" I was questioning your main point/argument, you know the one I allegedly took off topic? "It's not toxic to try and win the game."? I was pointing out that yes, this aspect of "winning" IS toxic. So just because it's an objective towards winning doesn't automatically waive the fact that something is toxic.
I honestly fail to understand where you somehow derived what I've said to you as "They wouldn't change it if it wasn't toxic." Though I am certain a decent portion of the reason for the change includes toxicity, like wasting all the Survivors' time by just letting them all bleed out on the ground rather than hooking them. Not to mention, player enjoyability of the game is pretty important for the health of a game.
I'm sorry, but if you're really going to now say that the only reason you posted is semantics, I sort of wonder why you posted in the first place? Like if literally your only point was that you believed I was using the term "toxic" incorrectly, which is what it sounds like you're trying to say, then honestly I feel like the misunderstanding is on you and it also means that you already missed the whole point of the thread in the first place?
Considering the context of your post in this thread? I don't think I can really be blamed for the specific assumptions I made? Not to mention, I have been addressing your point of "It's not toxic to try and win the game." It also feels like you're contradicting yourself because provoking the Killer to chase you is very much so a legitimate Survivor strategy and it doesn't force the Killer into a situation where they cannot play the game. So now you're contradicting yourself by bringing up t-bagging, notification spamming, and hook hitting (which is really just a part of tunneling).
You're the one with the misunderstanding, that's what I've been saying. Your title is part of your post, so its fair game to criticize. You read what I said and assumed that I was brushing off your entire argument and suggestions when the only thing I brought up was the toxic portion. That's on you buddy.
You took "hey this isn't toxic" and turned it into "wow you're disagreeing with my entire idea and saying this is perfectly fine to leave in the game as is".
Anything after that I was just responding to what you were saying.
The only way for your quote not to mean that, that means you are actually asking why they would change it if it wasn't toxic. This is counterproductive to your point as you're trying to argue it is. So either you're saying that they wouldn't if it wasn't toxic or you're working against your own argument.
I thought you would be smart enough to not work against your argument, so I guess thinking that was on me if you're saying that's what happened. Unless you can give me another reason why that question was included. As far as I see, it was either sarcastic or counterproductive to your argument.
At this point, in my opinion, it looks like you're being disingenuous to avoid any admission of fault on your side, or you just like to argue and be problematic, or you're being overly sensitive and taking any criticism as an attack against your entire post..
-
UB is one of the strongest perks in the game.
They just buffed it and made it unlimited.
I'd say the reaction is warranted.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3201107#Comment_3201107
Yeah it's so good when someone can proc the basekit BT and I lose the Endurance from OTR as well due to deep wounds. Super fun and useful effects. Honestly it does more to annoy me when I run aura builds on killer rather than anti-tunnel effects since the 80s lasts forever when you are snowballing and they still did a conspicuous action.
You can loop a killer for 70 seconds and still have an extra hit. You can go get healed come back and body block twice without going down. Killers can't afford to wait it out. Its just better than BT.
You're getting hit early because of OTR, killers can't wait it out, so they just hit you ASAP to get it over with. You're still benefitting from it.
That's like saying old DS is bad because the killer left you on the floor. Just because you didn't use the effect directly doesn't mean it's not really good.
Just because sometimes you get hit early doesn't mean much. That's like saying Unbreakable is bad because sometimes they don't slug.
-
@D4RK1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3202705#Comment_3202705
Waiting outside gate WAS punished, they implemented the end game collapse for it? As for t-bagging, it doesn't really affect gameplay now does it? Not to mention, a killer can always do something about t-bagging, putting a survivor into the dying state, causing them to be knocked out of the gates or hooking them afterwards, is something they definitely have control of.
I never said they did it because it was toxic. But they are implementing a change to the base game because of problems players have experienced and expressed that deal with gameplay and enjoyment of the game. I don't really see the difference between that and the topic of this thread which is early game camping/tunneling being a problem for the overall health of the game.
I'm not taking offense, but brushing off the main subject IS what you're doing. Your argument this entire time has essentially just been "Well, it's a way of accomplishing the objective, so it's fine." Like it's self-explanatory. Meanwhile I've been pushing the subject of respecting players' time by making it worth their time to Queue in. If I recall correctly, your rebuttal to that was "then just don't queue in." Currently I've brought up an example that directly addresses the whole "Well it's accomplishing the objective" argument you have and you seem to be trying to deflect the subject to semantics. How else should I take it, other than you're just trying to be contradictory?
EGC was to stop holding the game hostage not waiting at the gate. T-bagging is still here. Hook hitting is still here. Notification spamming is still here.
"As for t-bagging, it doesn't really affect gameplay now does it?"
Exactly, that's why its toxic. There's little to no benefit, its just to grief other players.
"So how come they're doing this if trying to win isn't toxic?"
"I never said they did it because it was toxic"
Yeah you did. With sarcasm, but you did.
Define "fine".
its not toxic, I never said it wouldn't be better if it were gone in a non-harmful way.
That's been my main argument/point, its not toxic or "not legitimate". My post was "It's not toxic to try and win the game." That's my point. It's a valid strategy. Survivors don't find it fun. Alright but that's different.
You're the one who took it off topic and started talking about teammates and whatnot. Again, you're arguing against a point/stance I never expressed or brought up. You assume way too much and get carried away with it.