NoHookDC
NoHookDC
About
- Username
- NoHookDC
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Then use your eyes?
-
And then those addons would never get used, because who'd nerf their power for no reason.
Great idea. /s
-
@I_CAME said:
Just do what everyone else does and immediately give up when you realize it's a Skull Merchant. Going next is always preferable to playing against a Skull Merchant. Survivor rewards are so low that there is absolutely zero reason to ever waste your time playing against her.
And this is why hook-DCing needs to be removed.
Because Survivors quit like toddlers if the Killer is/uses perks/uses addons/rolls a map that they don't like.
-
@CaulDrohn said:
"Which, btw, spoken like a true Survivor main."
You can check out my stats at nightlight, btw. I joined it just recently, so there are not so many games, but I play a little bit more killer than survivor (I play the role that gives more BP bonus, that usually is killer bc I can only play at night). And I play ALL games with a random perk build the site gives me (Build challenge).
So such a killer ban would indeed not impact me at all. But not because I'm a "true survivor main", but because I switch through all the killers for my Build Challenges. If I wouldn't get a game with Nurse, so what, will play the perk build with a different killer then ...
So such a killer ban would indeed not impact me at all.
And that makes it ok? All the Nurse and Blight mains would be affected, but not you, so it's a GREAT idea?
I've already pointed out the hypocrisy in thinking Survivors should be able to ban Killers but Killers can't ban Perks.
I also pointed out how it's not 'just increased queue times' for Killers while, somehow, banning Survivor perks is magically 'balance' instead. Weird non-logic on this one. Like, how it is NOT balance for Survivors, but unfair balance for Killers? How?
If I wouldn't get a game with Nurse, so what, will play the perk build with a different killer then ...
So all you can see is how it would affect you...and you're fine. Great way to go about a massive balance change. 🤦♂️
Anyways, we are arguing in circles, so I think I'll stop.
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419723#Comment_3419723
I don't see it lessening toxicity at all really. All it would achieve is allowing people to leave nasty comments on someone's profile if they play in a way they don't like.
Gods. I remember the early days, where any Survivor who lost left '-rep [insert excuse here]' on my profile.
-
@Haven414 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419698#Comment_3419698
But I mean specifically hex totems. Like they start already in the match and can only be broken by someone cleansing or booning the totem. It would work the same way as a killer's hex totem.
Again; Boons.
Why would Survivors get Boons AND Hexes? One thing you're forgetting is what a Killer's time is 4X more valuable than a Survivors due to numbers:
- A Survivor can Break or Boon a totem while other Survivors are Healing, Unhooking, On gens, etc. Basically; Survivors can do Totems AND their objective. A Killer cannot.
- You give Survivors 'Hexes' that are 'always on' and now the Killer has to spend time he does not have looking for it and breaking it while Survivors do gens. Basically; he is not furthering his objective while Survivors are.
- This is why Boons exist as they do; Survivors have to slow down their objective to make one. Because the Killer has to stop his objective to break it.
To give Survivors straight-up Hexes would be massively OP.
-
They do. They're called 'Boons'.
-
@CaulDrohn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419641#Comment_3419641
How are you so sure Nurse would be banned more than others? Nurse pick rate considerably lowered after her blink hits became special attacks. Blight is played way more often, so many groups might choose Blight over Nurse. Also, esp. high MMR teams usually LIKE going against a Nurse. But there are numerous reasons for hating killers: Constant 3-genning (Scully, Knight), Face Camping (Bubba), obnoxious addon combos (Legion), avoiding epilectic attacks (doctor) and so on.
Imo it's more probable that such a killer ban option would be very volatile. Bad game against a Pinhead? Just ban him and move on. Boring af Freddy game next? Will ban Freddy now ... but thats exactly why I said we would have to see it in a PTB. It's just not predictable is such a feature would impact queue times significantly or not.
No, banning surv perks is NOT the equivalent of banning killers. Banning KILLER PERKS is the equivalent of banning SURVIVOR PERKS! There is NO EQUIVALENT for banning a killer, period. I cannot tell you something for "counter balance", because there is none! But there simply does not need to be anything! A killer ban would not impact the trials, just the matchmaking time might be affected (taking longer). So if there was any compensation, it would have to be something about faster matchmaking. Like increased chances to find a lobby if you play a killer that is blocked a lot. Or maybe a BP bonus for potentially waiting longer. But surely no compensation to make your trails easier. When we assume that mostly the strong killers might be blocked, why should we make them STRONGER as a compensation? Thats flawed logic.
Where did I say survivors should be able to ban killer perks? I explicitly stated that perk bans in general are a really dumb idea. So no, NEITHER surivor NOR killer perk bans.
Since you made it very clear that there MUST be some kind of compensation for killers:
Why do you think a compensation is necessary? Just for "fairness"?
How do you justify buffing a killer (by allowing surv perk bans), when all the killer ban does is potentially increase queue times?
How does playing a widely banned killer make your games HARDER, so a compensation is needed?
I just don't get your reasoning here, so pls enlighten me.
So your idea is:
- Survivors can ban 1 Killer. This would (somehow) not be too badly abused because...vague reasons.
- Killers don't get to ban anything in return. Because...Survivor entitlement demands they control who Killers can play, now. You're ignoring reality or mad if you think someone will ban Freddy over Nurse or Blight. Anyone with an iota of pattern recognition knows your idea would lead to mass blockings of Nurse and Blight.
- Killers get bonus BP for playing massively-banned Killers. You know, in all those no games they will be playing because no one will want to wait 40 minutes to find a lobby.
- You think perk bans are dumb, but Survivors dictating who they can and cannot go against is fine? I can't tell if you're serious now, because this is...wow.
- You also think banning Killers is 'Just higher queue times' but Killers banning Perks is a buff? Hypocrisy much? How is Survivors banning a Killer fine but Killers banning a perk is magically a buff?
The idea is still horrible. Survivors get to dictate who they see, which adds up on a grand scale. And Killers get nothing because 'Increased queue times are THAT bad!' Which, btw, spoken like a true Survivor main.
"We get to block the most hated Killers and they will suck it up because we think it's fine. Also; Killers banning perks is a buff, but Survivors banning Killers is 'just increasing queue times'." 😂🤣😂
-
@Heytherebigguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419606#Comment_3419606
My hatred is a shared hatred by the community who knows how scummy SM players play the game, ignoring all the purpose of chase. Luckily after 3k hours I think ive learnt to play quite well in both roles, didn't learn how to break her forced 3 gens with solo queue team or even duo yet :)
I assume she will be reworked btw, if the mass dc and hook suicide against her will continue.
I assume she will be reworked btw, if the mass dc and hook suicide against her will continue.
The devs should never balance around salty players who DC and give up, or said players will use that mechanic to force changes on every Killer they dislike.
DC and hook-DCs should be punished with bans. Not rewarded with changes. You don't give a tantruming toddler the lollipop they want, after all, or you're reinforcing the idea that a temper tantrum can get them what they want.
-
@CaulDrohn said:
"And 4-Man SWFs could ban 4 different killers."
No, you should read again what I wrote before:
"And maybe only allow one killer could be banned per group. So a 4-man can only ban one, while randoms could potentially ban up to 4 (but cannot coordinate before, since they don't know wizth whom they queue)."
One banned killer per (swf) group!
"And yet Nurse, Blight, whatever players should not be forced to have inflated queue times just because salty Survivors want easy wins."
Sure, but it's not clear if that would be the case (hence a PTB). You can only ban one killer per group, and not all groups will ban the same. Some groups will ban Nurse, some Blight, some Spirit. They cannot ban ALL of them.
"No. [PTB] Would be a waste of time."
Since such a feature will never be implemented anyway, there won't be any PTB about it. But if hypothetically there was such a feature, then surely it would need a PTB to look if queue times are affected (heavily) or not.
You know, the devs response to things like different game modes is always "We do not want to divide the playerbase between normal and special matchmaking, which would increase queue times, so we are not doing it." But I think, we should actually try something out to see if that concern is justified or not. And something like a ban-feature test could be used for that purpose.
"Because it's the same thing; You want to ban a Killer & their powers. Survivors don't have powers, except for perks."
It is NOT the same. LIke I said, no killer will be banned from every group, it's not a gloabl ban! There will be groups which block them, and there are other roups which will face them. And this trials will play out relatively normal (survivor may perform a little bit better overall, just bc there are fewer players instantly giving up). Survivor perk bans by a killer would affect EACH and EVERY game that killer player is playing! Regardless whether the killer they are playing is actually on someones block list. Why should a team that does NOT block a certain killer be punished for playing against that killer?
Banning a killer would happen BEFORE a lobby is found! More specifically, when a group queues for the game, and possible matches with the blocked killer will be discarded. So when they find a lobby, it will be guaranteed it's not the blocked killer. Thats all because the killer player cannot change the killer after queueing.
Banning perks would happen AFTER finding a lobby, since perks can still be changed while waiting in a lobby. There would have to be some sort of notification that one party disallows the use of certain perks from the other party, and each party might have to adjust their loadout. Or just leave the lobby. If you are really concerned about queue times with a killer-ban option, just think about how much dodging would occur if perk bans would be a thing. Pls be aware that I'm talking about general perk bans here, not just survivor perk bans. Perk bans, indifferant for which side, will not work at all, just for the fact that they can be circumvented by dodging lobby and queueing again. There's no such issue with killer bans, bc when the killer gets into a lobby, it is guaranteed the this killer was not blocked by the survivors.
Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable
"Incorrect. They are the same thing. Because Survivors don't have powers to ban."
If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
"Incorrect. If Survivors can ban Killer powers or perks; Killers get to ban Survivor perks."
It is not incorrect, you just don't understood what I meant there. I tried to explain it again above. It all comes down to the fact that killer bans would be performed BEFORE a lobby was found, while perk bans can only be applied AFTER a lobby was found. Which itself leads to dodging. If we wanted to apply perk bans BEFORE as well, then the loadouts needed to be unchangeable once you queue for a game, just like how the killer is fixed when you queue. And that would REALLY increase the waiting times by alot!
So please, just read again what I wrote and think about how it would play out. It's not as "BS" as you make it out to be.
Even if SWFs only get 1 ban; the majority of the player base would ban Nurse because Survivors hate her. This means Nurse mains would be unfairly punished with longer queue times just because Survivors are lazy. 🤷♂️
And if Survivors could ban a Killer; what do Killers get in return? Banning Survivors is useless, because Survivor power is in the perks, not the Survivor. Which is why Killers would get to ban Perks. Because it's the Survivor equivalent.
Yes, Survivors ALSO have perks, but setting aside that fact; What would Killers get if Survivors can ban a Killer and completely shaft certain mains? What would be the Killer equivalent? What would be the trade? Name ANYTHING other than "Survivor Perks' that would be a fair balance. Can you?
Or are you going to insist that Survivors get to ban Killers AND perks while Killers only get to ban perks? Because that would b e unbalanced, unfair, and absolutely broken.
-
@Piruluk said:
Skull Merchant isnt even very strong, but survivors love to complain about everything.
Every killer must be the same, and has no powers, only allowed which can be taken away by survivors.
You forgot that they can't be anti-loop, because Survivors expect to loop every killer for a minimum of 5 minutes before needing to drop a pallet.
-
@CaulDrohn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419194#Comment_3419194
It would only be POTENTIALLY 4 killers for four randoms. And the randoms could not coordinate their bans, bc they have to lock in their banned killer BEFORE queueing for a match, since the killer player cannot change the killer once in a lobby!
It would only increase queue times when many different players all hate the same killer. But like I said, the hate for certain killers is relatively diverse, so I don't think it would be noticeably, at least in "normal" MMR regions. In high MMR regions, bans for nurse, blight or spirit might be more prevalent, potentially increasing their time. But it would also increase the wait for survivors, so I guess it would also self limit. Would be great to just try this out in a PTB, imo.
About banning perks, how is banning survivor perks fair as a compensation for killer bans? When 50% of survivors ban Blight, there are still the other 50% to build lobbies from. Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable. If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
It would only be POTENTIALLY 4 killers for four randoms. And the randoms could not coordinate their bans, bc they have to lock in their banned killer BEFORE queueing for a match, since the killer player cannot change the killer once in a lobby!
And 4-Man SWFs could ban 4 different killers.
In high MMR regions, bans for nurse, blight or spirit might be more prevalent, potentially increasing their time. But it would also increase the wait for survivors, so I guess it would also self limit.
And yet Nurse, Blight, whatever players should not be forced to have inflated queue times just because salty Survivors want easy wins.
Would be great to just try this out in a PTB, imo
No. Would be a waste of time.
About banning perks, how is banning survivor perks fair as a compensation for killer bans?
Because it's the same thing; You want to ban a Killer & their powers. Survivors don't have powers, except for perks.
Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable
Incorrect. They are the same thing. Because Survivors don't have powers to ban.
If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
Incorrect. If Survivors can ban Killer powers or perks; Killers get to ban Survivor perks.
Survivors should, in no way, get to freely ban Killer powers with Killers having to shrug and take it. This is BS.
Your idea is horrible and should never happen, but if it were to ever happen; Banning Killers or Killer Perks = Banning Survivor perks. And Survivors should not get to ban both.
-
@coolgue1 said:
most Randoms i get paired with if SM is killer putting drones on the gens they instantly DC because they don't want a stale mate for 30 minutes if they drone on a gen but it come to a point every time it's removed they going to put another drone and just coast between the 3 and NEVER commit to a chase if it means a drone gone 90% of people play her like this until her mechanics are reworked or she has a timer on putting drone on the same area again and again it going to happen until it's FIXED
Killers should not be balanced around Survivors ragequitting because they don't want a challenge. 🤷♂️
-
@Sakura1954 said:
tunneling = part of the game. Camping = part of the game. Both ways are bad, but they are part of the game, when will people understand that? They are core elements of the game. These things are simply part of it
It's only OK when Survivors tunnel and camp gens, which they insist does not exist.
When Killers try to win = 'Toxic', 'Unfun', and whatever new buzzword they invent.
When Survivors try to win = Game working as intended. Git gud Killers. Etc.
When Killers use META perks = Perks are OP. Perks are crutch. Killers are abusing them. Fix them before Survivors quit.
When Survivors use META perks = Perks are fine. It's good that they are popular. Don't change them or Survivors will quit.
-
Survivors get a QoL feature that changes game balance: This was needed! And the balance change is minimal!
Survivors on an FoV change: This would change the balance of the game! We can't have that!
-
@CaulDrohn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418973#Comment_3418973
With more than 30 killers, maybe DbD could use such a ban feature as well. It would have to be a selektion before queuing, bc the matchmaker would habe to respect it. And maybe only allow one killer could be banned per group. So a 4-man can only ban one, while randoms could potentially ban up to 4 (but cannot coordinate before, since they don't know wizth whom they queue).
Don't know if this would be abusable, but I think there are many killers hated on by different ppl (Nurse, Blight, Cannibal, Scully, Twins), that it might even out overall. YOu just would have to expect longer queueing times when using killer ban feature.-
No. Not unless Killers can pick to ban 4 perks.
I mean, you have 4 Survivors picking to ban up to 4 different Killers, which would inflate the queue times of people playing those Killers, based on Survivors having hurt feelings over some of the roster. So allowing Killers to ban perks they don't like in return is only fair.
-
@KMainEZ said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419087#Comment_3419087
Sounds like you're the entitled one. You happen to live in a place that has a stable provider, or options to have and all of a sudden your right to play a game Trumps someone who has a less reliable connection? They also payed for the game. The entitlement here is gross. They mess up your game 1/xxxx times (how often is any one individual actually going to get matched with you, usually) and you want to whine about it 🥱
No. The entitled people are the ones thinking 'I know my internet drops every 10 minutes, but I'm going to join this multiplayer game where one person leaving ruins the entire match. Because I deserve to ruin everyone's game and I want to play.'
-
HUNK will never be a Survivor because no Killer would have the temerity to kill him. 😁
-
There should be a low percent chance of opening a locker containing a dead Dwight.
When the Killer or Survivors opens the locker, and it contains DedDwight; the camera snap-zooms in a jumpscare before the body just falls out and disappears.
-
@MerleDixon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418644#Comment_3418644
What does you thinking it's a good change add to your point? your still crying about a much needed change being added into the game
Ok. I'll say it slower:
I. Like. The. Change.
I. Agree. it. Was. Needed.
That does not change the fact that what few QoL changes there have been were aimed at Survivors in some way, shape, or form: This heartbeat, the new Wriggle mechanic giving Survivors a buff, even if that was changed later.
But when Killers ack for a FoV slider; Suddenly it's too much to ask 'because balance', whereas the other changes ALSO affected balance, but were perfectly fine. Because they were for Survivor benefit.
Now, are you going to read what I typed, or just stretch as far as possible to pretend I'm crying so you can equally pretend you have some sort of valid point?
-
@MerleDixon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418318#Comment_3418318
Your crying over the visual terror radius popping up half a second before the audio...
Apparently you can't read.
You did see me say 'While a good change' right? Or did you ignore half my post to scurry down here and 'get me' with your smooth post? 🤣
-
@Cyber686 said:
try not to tunnel so hard next time
Ah yes, the usual 'It's your fault if your opponent ragequits' mentality. 🤮
@i_dont_care223 said:
for the record i didnt tunnel in fact i played insanely fair for skull merchant standards
Don't matter; Survivors will ragequit and then say what that person did. Them being salty is the Killer's fault, as per the Rulebook. 😂
-
@Sunsetll said:
I just don't think he should be able to walk into a locker if he can't teleport back to it
Why? Other than nerfing Dredge for no reason, I mean.
-
@Nos37 said:
(Start of sarcasm.)
Crazy how 9/10 times, survivors will repair gens to 100% progress if left uninterrupted. They have no empathy for the other side and it's toxic.
They should stop repairing the gen at 50% and go find a new gen to start over. Once all the gens are at 50% THEN they can commit to 100%. Survivors who do not do this are just bad at the game and need to have their reputation dragged and be told how to play.
9/10 times survivors will camp gens if the killer does not see them and leaves. The new Knight perk, Nowhere to Hide, helps with this but it's still unbearable.
(End of sarcasm.)
In before Survivors claim that your sarcastic example is nowhere near the same. 😁
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418209#Comment_3418209
No mither is suppose to be unlimited anti-slugging perk but because the perk eliminates an entire gameplay strategy for killer, they gave a huge downside to discourage players from using it.
From recent experimental ptb, they're likely going to be unlimited unbreakable base-kit therefore making the positive bonus of No Mither will become base-kit. When this change is pushed through, Slugging will forever be erased entirely from the game. I am fairly certain the change will go through. Developer 9/10 listen to popular opinion feedback. The popular opinion is survivor opinion. Slugging is unfun: remove it. Normally you would think for how integrate slugging into every killer gameplay but BVHR is different.
Your teammates throwing games because they picked No Mither is not healthy gameplay for survivor as you are losing games because your teammate is trolling. I don't like the perk in general but I will take no mither player over disconnect/rage quit self-suicide on hook.
Slugging will forever be erased entirely from the game.
And, as I have said before; every SWF will bring the offerings for the preschool, offerings to force the basement to be in shack, breakdown, boil over, flip-flop and a toolbox to sabo.
When they are chased; they will go into the school's normal basement & become unhookable. Then they will have infinite unbreakable and literally never lose.
This is Survivor balance in a nutshell: Prevent the Killer from ever winning. Killers winning is 'toxic' and 'OP'.
People complaining about slugging, camping, and tunneling are really complaining about losing. And if this is implemented & Survivors get bored of abusing it; They will then move on to the next thing to scream is 'toxic' and demand MORE basekit perks so they can run META without ever needing to fear the Killer or change their loadouts.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418318#Comment_3418318
Yeah, that’s why colorblind mode is only available for survivor side as well, right?
and just thinking about visual TR, which just wins the game for the survivors because now they can see the TR instead of just hearing it.
wait… something doesn’t seem right here?
I can cherry pick data, too!
Remember how the struggle QoL change from 'mash a & d' to 'hit skillchecks' also buffed survivors by allowing them to wriggle free faster, for absolutely no reason?
I'm sure you do.
-
Remember: Accessibility is for Survivors only. When it comes to Killers, the excuse is 'But the game balance'.
While ignoring that the visual TR, while a good accessibility change, also changes game balance.
-
Survivors on Killer Perks: If it's picked allot, this proves it's too strong and should be nerfed.
Survivors On Survivor Perks: If it's picked allot, it means it's in a good place and should never be nerfed.
Also; a perk being used is not being 'abused' when it's doing exactly what it's meant too.
-
No we don't.
If Survivors got basekit UB; they'd force Badham, force the basement to be in Killer Shack, and run into the school basement with Flip-Flop and Boil Over and Breakdown non-stop.
Killer's only option would be slugging, which would be removed with basekit UB.
Survivors really need to stop thinking 'I don't like [x], therefore I should get a free perk to stop it.'
-
@For_The_People said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3405676#Comment_3405676
There are two things I’d like to comment - one is directly at your point about potential weaponisation (which I agree) is that the current status quo is that MANY killers do camp. I think the potential weaponisation would shift the status quo but it feels unfair to think “well, yes killers can use this unfair strategy, but it’s hard to change because survivors can turn it into a survivor sided unfair strategy.. so let’s just keep it as a killer sided unfair strategy”.
Having said that, I DO agree with you that the best approach should not be one which just switches the status quo to another unfair one. But it must be changed altogether.
problem with reassurance or any perk related change is that it can be used in many cases unfairly even when nobody is camping. Kind of like saying, here is a bat to use to hit the killer over he head if they are camping - but it won’t stop them being h it even if they aren’t - patently unfair.
I do think that there should be an inbuilt non perk mechanic which punishes camping severely and has certain conditions.
- If killer doesn’t move away from the proximity though no other survivors nearby, then hook timer pauses for survivor and they gain points from their teammates who are on gens. Gens themselves should have skill checks removed and faster to complete if a teammate is being camped beyond 30 seconds (with no other teammates around) and increase bonuses to compensate for the lack of opportunity to gain other points (chases, boldness etc)
- Remove healthy grab, or turn into a locked animation that results in a trade (hooked gets unhooked but unhooked automatically gets picked post unhook)
- Auto down weapons deactivated if 30 seconds have passed and one teammate is in proximity to save. Auto down weapon restricted to one down when more than one survivor is present
- Number 1 doesn’t apply to endgame
what do you think of the above? If there are exploits for the above then hopefully we can think about ways to negate those but I personally believe the above is a fair failsafe method in most cases.
- No. Survivors would just stand far enough away that the game thinks the Killer is 'alone'. In separate directions. If the Killer chases 1, the other unhooks for free. If the killer resets, the game still thinks he's 'alone' and keeps the hook timer paused. This has been suggested a million times and is always proven to be broken and easily abused.
- Eh. Healthy grab should be a hit. Nothing more.
- No. Why should Survivors get immunity to auto down for running the Killer near the hook until it procs?
- Also; there was someone who said 'All Killers powers should deactivate near the hook'. No. Why should Survivors get immunity to everything? They would, literally, run the Killer near the hook to get their little zone of no-powers.
I don't get why people keep thinking 'I don't like camping, so lets invent some completely BS, easily abused mechanic Survivors can use to always force free unhooks!'
-
Ah yes, the usual 'Let's insult & demean Killers for making me lose in a way I don't Approve Of & demand the devs 'fix' anything I don't like' complaint.
You'll stop being as angry when you realize it's not 'sucking' that makes Killers camp and tunnel. Or are you saying people who 'suck' at the game still manage to kill you?
Think carefully.
Hint: It's not 'toxic' just because losing makes you angry.
-
Not in the slightest. But have fun with that.
-
@CorvusCorax86 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417700#Comment_3417700
Small note on my part: Sometimes I thank the killer for playing fair (due to the number of camps and tunneling I see) and survivors sometimes do the gg and add "killer, you too". It feels nice to a certain degree but the compliment stems from the aforementioned issues. It's just crazy nowadays and you literally don't know what will happen in the endgame chat.
I wish I'd get players like you, then. I can still remember my first time being accused of 'Proxy Camping':
- I was playing Hag and, to be nice, I would not place traps under a hook, nor would I surround the hook. I would place ONE trap in the closest chokepoint. That usually left 2-3 other ways to get in to save someone. Or...just crouch as you walk in.
- I would walk away from the hook, chase other people, kick gens, and do everything else a Killer needs to do.
- After I got 3 separate hook trades by people picking the one path I'd trap without looking ahead; I did not teleport for the next two unhooks. But I resumed once it was down to 1 gen & all 4 Survivors were still alive.
- Once again; I'd place ONE trap in ONE chokepoint. Anyone with pattern recognition would have learned by now; Crouch, or take one of the other routes to the hook! But nope! Triggered my traps!
- So I have a 3K, and I'm chasing the last person. All 5 gens are powered, but the gates are not open.
- I down them and, before they even hit the ground; DC. They had to have their hand on the router to drop that fast.
- DCer, in the end game chat: Campers don't deserve 4Ks!
- Me: I did not camp. At all. I never stayed near the hook.
- DCer: You proxy camped!
- Me: So I can't even return to a hook because you guys have the memory of goldfish & never learned 'Don't take the chokepoint'? K. Good luck with never learning from your mistakes.
- I can not repeat what they typed next. SO I just typed 'LOL' and left.
Those are the kinds of people who make DBD such an unbearable slog, sometimes.
-
@Marc_go_solo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417682#Comment_3417682
This made me think of a continuously circle of misery people set for one another. One person experiences bad stuff from another, then they themselves expel their frustrations on another and then the whole thing just keeps on truckin'
Survivors and killers are like the chicken and egg scenario: we don't know which started it, but we know the cycle continues. People need to be a bit more conscious regardless of experience because it will only get worse and worse as people give in rather than fight through to retain any dignity.
As for tunnelling or camping, I've not experienced it much myself, but I noticed the best tactic for killer is to tunnel the first out quickly then slug the rest. I don't do it, but I sense if this style becomes prevailant it will not go unnoticed.
What dignity?
I can handicap myself for Survivor fun all I want; I'll never be thanked. I don't get to win. And I get insulted.
I can handicap myself for Killer fun when I play with my friends: Same thing.
What do I get out of it? To think "Oh! I may have only got 2 hooks, and insulted, and told to uninstall; But at least the people telling me this had fun!"
I've been playing off and on since launch, and I have never, NEVER, had someone say "You know what? You could have camped me. You saw my teammate waiting to unhook me, and you walked away. Thanks." Or "Thanks for not tunneling the Meg." Or "Thanks for letting me sacrifice you after the gates were opened, so I could get some more BP."
Heck, I stopped giving hatch after I had three different people on the same day say "EZ. Noob Killer. Uninstall." When I carried them to the hatch and dropped them on top of it.
Yet they had this thought that, somehow, they beat me. I'm still wondering if they thought their previously-unknown psychic powers made me let them escape. 🤦♂️
I've also had people insult me for NOT giving them hatch. You know "Be happy with a 3K" and "Stop sweating for a 4K." They literally thought giving the hatch was expected, not a gift for me to give out at my choice.
So again; Why, when I'm playing either side, should I care about anyone's fun over my own?
I care about everyone's fun insofar as:
- I don't DC
- I don't insult people.
- I don't sandbag.
- I don't cheat/Use bugs.
I make sure everyone can play the game as intended; Without greifing, cheating, or being a massive jerk. But when it comes to trying to win; I will try my hardest, and don't expect any less from anyone else.
-
Welp. Every time I don't camp or tunnel, or clearly go out of my way to cut off a chase on an injured player for a healthy player; I get t-bagged, flashy-clicked, and told to uninstall in the end game chat.
So now I play how I feel like playing. If Survivors don't give a rats behind about my enjoyment; why should I care about theirs?
-
Don't you love how Survivors get an insta-Spine Chill effect, but Killers getting a bigger FoV is 'impossible' and 'would be unfair'?
Oh yeah, and when struggling was changed to a skillcheck (Another disability-based change, like this heartbeat); the devs gave Survivors a buff by allowing hitting the skillchecks to cut down on the time the Killer could carry them.
It like any QoL change has to come with a Survivor buff. I imagine the devs will, one day, put in an FoV slider. But the patch notes will also say something like 'To compensate, Survivors can now blind Killers from any angle. Even directly behind.'
-
@Seraphor said:
Gen tapping was already addressed when gen kicks were given a 2.5% instant regression effect. If a survivor taps a gen, kick it again to apply another 2.5% instant regression, it becomes their loss.
2.5% regression is equivalent to 10 seconds of regression time.
Gen tapping was only beneficial to survivors in the context of old Call of Brine or Overcharge where gens would regress rapidly if left to regress. But now with those perks neutered, the basic gen kick is the superior tool.
Except you can't kick it if they are working on it.
2 Survivors on a 90% gen and the Killer literally has 0 power to stop it. Nothing.
That should not happen in a game where the Killer is supposed to be the power role.
@SuperMunchkin95 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/374376/how-to-fix-gen-kicking-gen-tapping
it's the strategy in the game, if your complaining on this specific scenario, then get to the gen BEFORE 90% I don't we should nerf this because you showed up a minute late, that's a little bit ridiculous.
It's not a nerf. It's a change to make it more fair.
-
@maximo99ac said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417358#Comment_3417358
good story but in the reality survivors bodyblocking with base bt is superrare and killers that tunnel are super common
Ah yes. Because your experience is the baseline and the amount of times I've seen it, and the people who have ALSO said they see it allot, are wrong? 🙄
Cool story but in reality, survivors bodyblocking with basekit BT are pretty common and Killers tunneling has nothing to do with my entire post.
Try again.
-
@maximo99ac said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416475#Comment_3416475
op is complaining about the survivors asking for new antitunneling mechanics when supposedly they use the base bt in ways that promote tunneling
Both, actually.
It's irritating that some Survivors complained about tunneling, got an anti-tunneling mechanic, and then used it for force tunneling...only to continue to complain about it happening.
And it's irritating that Survivors who do this, then shame, insult, and harass Killers for 'tunneling' when they forced it to happen. It's like the ones who do this actually think they deserve to get away after bodyblocking the Killer.
-
No. We don't need a new perk to give Survivors free distance right after DH was changed to remove it.
-
@Nebula said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416581#Comment_3416581
Proxy camping is a term made up by survivors??
This is one I never thought I’d see lol.
What’s next? Tunneling and face-camping is just a term made up by salty survivors?
Yes, Tunneling is made up.
Survivors will do the gen that's at 90%. Efficient, smart playing. Why do a gent at 0% when you have one almost complete?
But if Killers go after the wounded, previously hooked Survivor, it's 'tunneling' and 'toxic' for them to play efficiently. They are expected to ignore the wounded Survivor to go after the unwounded, never-hooked Survivor.
But I already admitted face-camping WAS legit. And then it was removed by allow Survivors to unhook from other angles.
So try again.
-
@AverageKateMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416923#Comment_3416923
Again, what you're doing is intentionally finding a way just to slander people. In fact, a majority of people including content creators have given the same definition to what proxy camping is so no it's definitely defined for the most part. If you need to rant then that's fine. Stop slandering other people while trying to act better than the people you slander. You aren't any better
Who did I slander?
Slander is knowingly printing falsehoods about someone. Nor did I act better than anyone.
It's like you're just looking for a fight and to dismiss everything I've said with vague excuses and words you think sound scary.
-
@AverageKateMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416913#Comment_3416913
I didn't prove it's an undefined thing. I specifically said if you're hovering around the hook area to force a trade, that's proxying. You physically cannot deny that when the term proxy means around/close to. I don't understand all this backlash when proxy camping isn't even that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. And judging by your tone, I don't think you created this thread for a good hearted discussion. I think you did it simply to create division and your words prove that.
Before you try to repeat yourself, I specifically said hovering around the hook just to force a trade not leaving the area and happening to see the notification because people got too greedy and decided to farm the unhooked survivor
Yes; YOU said one thing. Someone else said it was something else.
This proves it's undefined, because people don't have a shared, solid idea of what 'proxy camping' is. It's different for everyone because it's a made up buzzword (buzzphrase?) to allow Survivors to act outraged and pretend some rule or code of honor was broken.
-
@AverageKateMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416581#Comment_3416581
I'm so tired of people like you name shaming over this game while conveniently engaging in toxicity yourself. Proxy camping is a thing when the killer is hovering around the hook to force a trade. Let's not lie just to shame people
Proxy camping is a made up concept so Survivors could continue to scream that Killers were 'camping' and pretend their made up rulebook had any validity.
Lets face facts:
- Killers facecamped. Survivors rightfully complained that it was unfair Killers could stand still and block all unhooks. It was changed.
- Then Survivors decided a Killer being near the hook was still improper, screamed about camping, and demanded BHVR do something to enforce this new definition of camping, since facecamping was now not possible.
- Then, when Killers would come back to a hook after hearing an unhook; Survivors wanted to scream 'Camping!" but realized that no; the Killer had left. So they invented 'Proxy camping' and continue to pretend this broke some rule.
Also; you just proved it's an undefined concept and then claimed it's valid; You claimed it's close enough to 'force a trade'. Someone ELSE claimed 'If you can see the Survivor from any distance; you're proxy camping'.
So, right there, it's proven it's a made-up concept that players scream is real while giving conflicting definitions because it does not actually exist with a set definition.
-
@Hawk81584 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3415808#Comment_3415808
so basically, bring unbreakable to avoid being slugged. and once ive used unbreakable the first time and i get slugged again. then what?
- Hope your teammates help.
- Move to a pallet and hope for a pallet save.
- Fill up your rescue bar so a friend can get you up ASAP.
- Laugh as the Killer throws the game if he is camping your body.
Or do you think Survivors should get a free perk to stand up whenever they want, just because they say 'Slugging is not fun for us'?
-
@Sharby said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416589#Comment_3416589
This, every-time I see people doing the absolute most to justify playing a certain way and it never makes sense.
Let's be real, you were going to camp and tunnel anyways. Who cares, virtually everyone is desensitized to it aside from loud minority. We all know its an issue that will be addressed eventually, just be honest and move on.
Most people don't even care about tunneling or camping in a close game, in a tense match, any advantage will be taken to win. The problem is when killers get an enormous lead really early on and still play like this.
Fun is subjective and all, but tunneling and camping are supposed to be last-resort strategies that are used when you really want to win as they are super efficient but less enjoyable. People are going to rightfully treat you like a weirdo when you employ these strategies even in situations where you don't have to.
The "Survivor Rulebook" is just a dumb boogeyman that killer players bring up as a buzzword to throw a pity party over their controversial playstyle.
When in reality, its not even a rulebook and more "the game would be more fun us if you played like this instead."
The "Survivor Rulebook" is just a dumb boogeyman that killer players bring up as a buzzword to throw a pity party over their controversial playstyle.
Except it very much existed as the game gained popularity. Suddenly, Survivors were inventing rules against camping, tunneling, slugging, not playing Nurse, not using certain perks, etc.
When in reality, its not even a rulebook and more "the game would be more fun us if you played like this instead."
When in reality it was more "It would be more fun for us if Killers stopped trying to win. Now excuse me while we bring 2 BNP, a flashlight, and a purple medkit. And all META perks. And use voice comms in a 4-man SWF. But Killers need to stop 'tryharding' and 'sweating' and play off-META sometimes, because our fun matters.'
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416516#Comment_3416516
Because it retains the "work together or die" design of the Survivor role that is lost as Survivors lose Generator output potential through Sacrifices? It also means that Survivors can "neglect to help with hatch" if they think the other Survivor wasn't pulling their weight, tugging more at social dynamics instead of Hatch being a baked in system feature. (Also it would keep in mind SWF comms, so pointing out where the hatch is would also be integrated into SoloQ)
Killer performance only really having a meaningful completionist reward mechanism payout when getting a 4K and not at any lower threshold during a Trial is another topic, but tightly bound to Hatch. (The Killer has no Trial Milestone, such as with Survivors and Generators. When the Exit Gate is Powered, gameplay goals change for everyone. When a Survivor is Killed, there are no changes in gameplay goals).
Because it retains the "work together or die" design of the Survivor role that is lost as Survivors lose Generator output potential through Sacrifices?
Except that's the point of an Asym game like this; The Survivors lose power as they are picked off. The Killer gains power as the equation moves closer to 1v1.
You want to suddenly give Survivors the ability for a free escape by allowing dead Survivors to guide their friends to the hatch, which would be something the Killer cannot counter in any way, shape, or form. All because the game's power balance is working as intended?
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416585#Comment_3416585
I mean it doesn’t matter to you if survivors complain or not (and it shouldn’t, tbh). Because their fun isn’t your responsibility, after all. Like I said it’s ok to camp just be honest with yourself about it. You don’t earn brownie points by trying to like explain it away, deny it, rationalize it, justify it, etc. you camp and that’s ok. Most players do. Hell, I do. Lol.
anyway don’t bother responding, I won’t acknowledge you. I’ve moved on.
So you wanted the last word?
I hate when people say their part, then say 'Don't bother replying', as if they get to control the discussion.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416574#Comment_3416574
Here’s an easy answer: if you have LOS of hook, and by that I mean you can see the survivor’s body loaded in, you are proxy camping. You’re proximate to the hook. If you cannot see the hook, meaning you’ve moved so far from the hook if the survivor is saved you just see the bubble, you’re not proxy camping.
if you have LOS of hook, and by that I mean you can see the survivor’s body loaded in, you are proxy camping.
So, basically 'If you are not as physically far away as possible; Survivors will complain, invent a phrase to shame Killers, and blame the Killer for doing this thing they invented with arbitrary rules to it.'.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416557#Comment_3416557
If you were across the map returning to the hook wouldn’t be strategic. The only scenarios where it’s at all reasonable involve some form of camping (face or proxy).
It would be if I did not know where anyone was. I mean, what's smarter?
- Keep hunting for people I have 0 idea about.
- Go back to the loud noise notification and hope they are healing or I see scratch marks I can chase.
Also; proxy camping' is not real. It's, once again, a fake phrase Survivors invented to complain. 'He was camping!" "He left the hook. How was he camping?" He was PROXY camping!"
And there are times Survivors unhook when I am walking away, and the bodyblock happens. Quit acting like the Killer broke some rule in order for this to happen.