Onyx
Onyx
About
- Username
- Onyx
- Joined
- Visits
- 133
- Last Active
Comments
-
I do not like this because it doesn't solve the camping for the person being hooked. Camping should not be solved by having the hooked survivor be written as essentially dead and simply help the others escape. Camping should be solved in a way where survivors are able to simply save the person off the hook with ease, thus they get to play the game.
-
I would like more settings in general, just because people with disabilities exist. All the sound and graphics options that games have nowadays are there for a reason, not just for advantages, but for people with different disabilities to adjust the game so they can have a good time playing as well. So, to me, I am okay with them and in general with any settings options that help others have a better gaming experience.
-
Could be a cool perk or killer power
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3049611#Comment_3049611
The issue is that a non-negligible amount of Survivor mains have gone all in on their character of choice because there's an assumption that Survivor choice makes no meaningful difference. To change that now all of a sudden risks a player now finding that their character might suck and that all their effort put into that character has gone to waste.
No, their survivor wouldn't suck because if the change is minimal it doesn't mean much. Plus we have mains for every killer and some are not amazing, yet people still play them. I think you guys overcomplicate things and apply feelings too much to something that wouldn't happen. If killers can be unique and some even with bad abilities, so can survivors!
-
@Jarky said:
Because it changes the dynamic of the survivor side 6+ years into the game's life.
Survivor players suddenly may start going "I'm not playing with any Feng's - useless passive." as an example, or "Switch to Laurie or I'm out." Killers don't have that issue - you go into that match knowing you're playing a comparatively weaker killer to Nurse for example, that is your own solo choice as a player. Killers also know what survivors they're going against, so if they hate seeing a particular survivor because of their passive, you then introduce the problem of them going, "I'm not playing Wraith against that, I'm lobby dodging this."
You also then put the killer player into a situation in-game where they're potentially thinking , "Well that survivor in particular has a strong passive, and the others have weaker ones, I need to get THAT survivor out of the game ASAP." which just confounds the tunnelling problem we have already.
When people have spent many months or even years levelling a particular survivor and spent money or time unlocking cosmetics, etc. on them because they connect to that survivor and you introduce passives many years into the game's life, and people suddenly don't want to play with that survivor you introduce something I don't think is personally worth it.
Had it been from launch? Maybe - or if survivors just had a 'passive slot' in general that you could equip and unlock as a teachable across survivors as a whole? I might be more on board with. I just don't personally agree with individual survivors having passives this far into the game's life.
Dude, killers already do that when they see items and that used to happen when they saw people with P3 as well, it's a bad take and not a good excuse. Ignoring the chat is also possible. I am tired of people making excuses for changes, excuses that are just hypothetical "well um, if you do this, people will do X or Y" YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! I say, how about we first try this before outright ignoring it and even let things settle over time.
I am tired of hypotheticals, I need concrete evidence that such a system wouldn't work, rather than what you feel like things will happen!
-
@Jarky said:
Unfortunately, I think it's far too late in the game's life to introduce this kinda thing to the survivor side. I understand the sentiment behind it, because it makes the survivors more than just skins, but as Scalacious has pointed out, it would turn the game into 'meta survivors' and the variety of the amount of survivors you see would go down. People would also feel pressured to 'abandon' the survivors they main to pick one that is meta.
I do like your ideas though.
I don't understand the logic behind this. We have meta killers too, but you don't see only those killers being played. Also, why is it okay for killers to pick meta killers, but not survivors? You get what I mean? Like, why is it bad that there would be a survivor meta, when there isn't a problem with killers doing it? I am tired of survivors being just skins and I don't see the point of it.
-
I mean, we should be trying to fix camping, not just one-shotting. No need half-ass a fix, best to find an actual permanent solution than to constantly do tiny band-aid fixes.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3048528#Comment_3048528
I think that's fine. If absolutely necessary, just make it so a Survivor can only be hit by the Bubba saw once per rev.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3048535#Comment_3048535
I don't think the solution to camping is to make Survivors effectively insta-heal just for being within range.
I mean it's not fine because you haven't solved camping at that point :v
-
Doesn't help with Bubba which can still just chainsaw, since he doesn't stop his chainsaw upon hitting someone, so he can still camp, only that now he would have Speed Limiter when near.
-
No, sorry, but this is a bad idea, it would just make it easier for people to use 4 slowdown perks and have the 5th be something that still helps massively, but it also forces the devs to go and mark perks as slowdown just to disable the ability from them being equipped and do that for every future perk.
The beauty of DbD is its simplicity, overcomplicating it with "you have 5 perk slots but this one you can only equip certain perks" is just not good. If they add more perk slots every perk should be equitable, because that is how game design works. The alternative would be to categorize every perk and have each perk slot only take a perk from each category, which just limits creativity in perk combinations. Plus a LOT of balance changes would have to be made to make 5 perks work, it's just a bit too late for that.
-
@agonizing said:
Strange, so many new accounts asking for Nurse nerfs…
Almost as if people have opinions and want to express them and best way to show them is through the forums. Tell me, do you judge everybody based on what their first posts are?
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3048117#Comment_3048117
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3048241#Comment_3048241
I would love these changes only to see what they find to complain next because we all know thats what would happen.
They would probably ask for survivor to start on hooks or remove exit gates. I have been told in the past survivors should not care about dying because they have other things to enjoy from a match, but killing is all killers have. So maybe just start the match with all survivors dead and then have them respawn as ghosts to roam around for 5 mins or something.
-
I actually like this change. At the same time, maybe it is simply time for a base increase in FoV, because I know they don't want an FoV slider. So just make Shadowborn basekit and change Shadowborn to be this, but maybe 32m is too much, maybe 16 or 24 would be better.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3048164#Comment_3048164
For Trapper and Hag, those are valid uses of their powers, and they have counters in that you can disarm/burn their traps away, or just crouch over Hags.
Blight/Nurse, are countered as you would counter them anyway. Wraith/Spirit too, they're just mobility powers, and you can't stop them from engaging in an objective entirely.
None of those things are actually camping, unless the killer is physically next to the hook. They're just smart uses of their power to quickly pressure survivors. None of these things prevent a rescue attempt.
Myers 99%ing his stalk can be done at any time, and Billy's chainsaw is much more easily countered then Bubbas. Though I suppose Billy could still get the same treatment as Bubba. Myers I'm not so sure. You could mayve prevent him from stalking unhooked survivors for 3s after the hook, but not being able to stalk the rescuer wouldnt be fair. Or maybe he just can't gain evil when he is physically within 5m of the hook.
Idk, I feel like that just makes things more complicated than they should. We already have killers having powers be disabled around hooked survivors: You can't leave Victor too close, you can't leave Trails of torment near hooks, can't teleport to lockers around hooked survivors as Dredge etc.
This change just applies the same logic to every killer with the added benefit of not screwing over slower killers by actually making them 4.6 when that effect takes place. So it's not like killer powers being disabled is a new thing, this just streamlines it.
-
@MrMori said:
Agree on removing hook grabs, the stupid thing never gets validated anyway. I'd rather just have 3 survs rushing towards hook with 2 99'd gates and with BT and bodyblocks on the ready and know it's over than to have the carrot of an unhook grab dangled in front of my face.
But don't disable the killers power when near a hook, that's terrible.
Remove hookgrabs, increase time on hook to 80 seconds. That oughta do it.
Doesn't solve the issue with Bubba and Hag and Billy, etc, tho. How would you fix that?
-
@Seraphor said:
I agree that hook grabs are problematic. Like the old hatch grabs, they force a standoff situation that's no fun for anyone and is completely luck of the draw. Plus, it only really happens with camping.
Without hook grabs, killers would be forced to hit the survivor making the rescue, which is now much easier with the changes to attack cooldowns, and it would make a hook trade far more likely, while reducing the chances of a 2nd free hook.
That's a net gain for survivors, as the chances of two survivors being on hooks simultaneously is decreased, while a hook trade is generally in their favour, it relieves a survivor close to death, and replaces them with one who's got more time to spare, which is particularly good against campers who want to eliminate a survivor ASAP. Instead of one 3 minute timer, they have multiple 3 minute timers to get through.
And yet a killer can still be satisfied with a hook trade, as it's another hook score event, and the killer hasn't lost anything, while gaining objective progress. Even at end game, you want a hook trade more than a flat out fresh hook, so you can score more hook events, and keep all of the survivors in the game longer, increasing their chances of being ultimately sacrificed. I've had end-games like this where all survivors made it to the gates, and then through over-altruistic behaviour, 3 of them ended up dead, purely through hook trades.
So I think eliminating hook grabs would be a win-win, and a much more effective 'camping counter' than any of the perk changes they're making in this next update.
The other ideas, no so much. Not only would this kind of change be prone to a multitude of different bugs for each killer, making it unlikely to get through QA, but frankly, depending on the killer, they don't all deserve to have their powers disabled. The only one really is Bubba. Perhaps what's needed is a nerf to Bubba specifically, that turns his chainsaw non-lethal (only 1 health state is taken per hit) within 5m of a hooked survivor and persists for 3s after an unhook.
My reasoning behind disabling killer powers as opposed to just a change to Bubba is because it's not just Bubba that can camp well. Trapper can camp Basement, Hag can easily camp hooks from a distance, Nurse can just hit and then blink so fast that she can catch up easily, Blight is also fast enough to catch up, Myers can activate a T3 anytime they want, Billy also has an insta-down, you can Camp with Victor as Twins.
You see what I mean? This is more than just a Bubba issue, this is an issue with killer powers in general. At least that's how I see it.
-
@Risky_Biscuit said:
Hook grabs are there to punish unsafe hook saves. Why should the unhooker be rewarded for unhooking their teammate in the killer's face ? If you make a mistake, you should be punished for being careless. Simple as that.
You want to punish the killer for doing their job by shutting off their power near hooked survivors ? No. They earned their hook. Deal with it. Go do gens. If a killer is gonna sit there and camp one person, they've already lost. Literally gen rush them and leave. Yes, the hooked person has to take an L for the team, but the killer only gets that single kill all game if you rush gens. That's the countermeasure for camping.
Camping is generally a losing strategy. A viable one, but a losing one. I actively don't camp hooks because of losing more games that way than any other way. You camp a hook, gens fly, and then after they're done, they still unhook the last survivor and get 4 escapes. It rarely works out for the killer.
That is a horrible suggestion. Nobody should just "take an L" and be camped. I am not playing the game for other peoples enjoyment, I am doing it for myself. Also just because the killer got a hook doesn't mean he earned the right to deny unhooks. This is not healthy for the game, plus with unsafe unhooks at least survivors get that 5s BT, which won't always help. Also if the survivors are that close, just smack them, that is a free hit for you on the unhooker. I really do not understand how you could possibly see that as a bad thing on the killers side :/
-
For the last time, EGC was not create to give killers more kills, it was made to stop people from staying in a match too long and never leaving, essentially holding the game hostage. EGC is here to tell survivors "leave or you will die, this game is over one way or another". It's not a tool meant to help killers get kills, it's there to stop people from holding the game hostage.
-
@Mandy said:
There is no way you can block other players from matching with you...even using the Steam block feature.
I would love if, by using the game's blocking feature, it did prevent me from matchmaking with that person in the future. Sometimes I go against a person that I would really not wanna go against ever again. I've gone in a match with them, I played it, could I at least have the option to blacklist them?
-
@Remedicist said:
I like this change. Being powered up in end-game with an end-game build is really nice. And since the exposed part of it can be at least more accessibly counters while still buffing the killer is pretty sweet. A bit off topic but they should probably buff Fire Up a bit as well since that perk also should be buffing the killer as gens get done but it does not do it very well.
True, Fire Up should be 8% per gen >:3
-
@Marcavecunc said:
Requiring all 5 totems to remain the entire match for exposed to proc? No thanks. "Wonder if the killer has NOED.. oh wait, who cares, I just cleansed a dull totem"
That is why there are other effects just as strong depending on how many totems are left. Just cleansing one totem and calling it a day won't help you, because the other effects stacked make it strong, but this way it also means it is less bullshit where you still get exposed even if you cleanse totems. Lets stop with the killer bias and get rid of undeserved kills.
-
@Mozic said:
One thought I've seen regarding this new change is that a survivor team wanting to control NOED risk would only need to think about breaking dull totems that are in areas that would be severely disadvantageous were NOED to spawn there - like right by a hook or near the basement.
The issue that NOED formerly had where it could spawn on the most difficult-to-find totems should be largely eliminated if not become a potential advantage, as survivors will be more likely to find the hexed totem in a more out-of-the-way location where they wont be interrupted during the cleansing.
I think it's a pretty smart change, and it also presents an acknowledgement from the devs that the current effects are entirely welcome, by their estimation.
It's just not a fair and fun perk, getting killed by it feels cheap, especially if you actually bothered cleansing totems. Do you think people will suddenly bother looking for the totem now that they can see the aura? No, they will still just leave. And it won't help if the killer hooks you near the totem making it impossible to cleanse it.
The game should be fun and this perk makes the game unfun and most importantly unfair.
-
@Mozic said:
One thought I've seen regarding this new change is that a survivor team wanting to control NOED risk would only need to think about breaking dull totems that are in areas that would be severely disadvantageous were NOED to spawn there - like right by a hook or near the basement.
The issue that NOED formerly had where it could spawn on the most difficult-to-find totems should be largely eliminated if not become a potential advantage, as survivors will be more likely to find the hexed totem in a more out-of-the-way location where they wont be interrupted during the cleansing.
I think it's a pretty smart change, and it also presents an acknowledgement from the devs that the current effects are entirely welcome, by their estimation.
I don't know man, I think it's keeping a perk annoying for no reason and then just slapping a "here is NOED!" to the totems aura as if people will give a damn suddenly. Plus won't help if the killer hooks you next to the totem. The game should first be fun and NOED is simply not fun, it needs to be reworked in a way that actually makes it less frustrating to go against. It just feels cheap!!!!
-
7% is nothing in the grand scheme of things
-
I agree, i don't get why they had to nerf it like this :/ I think it's the wrong direction for a perfectly good perk.
-
@Mozic said:
I do like a perk with stacking (or in this case, regressing) effects, but this design sounds like a lot more people would escape death, which probably doesn't line up with the perk's motto.
Well, turns out that nobody escaping death isn't exactly a good mechanic for a game where one side has to try escape and the other sides job to kill. Because it makes kills feel cheap and simply a result from one single perk than your own skill. And in an online game, skill should be the thing that makes an impact.
Just because the perk's name is "No One Escapes Death" doesn't mean you have to make it in game actually guarantee you that nobody escapes death. Many perks are named something and their action doesn't exactly have something to do with the name.
-
@then4321 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1956318#Comment_1956318
I've bought a bunch of stuff to, but BHVR didn't twist our arms and makes us buy anything, that was our choice and we got what we paid for.
So, yes, I think asking for more than what I paid for is greedy.
The base game + all the DLC's (not including the soundtrack or cosmetics) is $147. I've spent nearly 4,000 hours playing this game. 4,000 divided by 147 comes to about 27. That means, for each $1 I spent on this game, I've gotten 27 hours worth of entertainment.
Worth every penny.
I've literally commented as to why filling the Free Track would even be a good design decision. It's not greedy rewarding your playerbase for engaging with a mechanic. Greedy is them making the Free Track so barren that you are forced to buy the premium track to feel you got something out of it.
Neither I, nor everybody who agrees with me, is greedy for asking that the Free Track be populated with simple things, like BP or Shards. Greedy would be if we asked that the Free Track contained a bunch of rare or even legendary cosmetics. Bloodpoints and iri shards are far from being a tall ask.
-
@then4321 said:
The thing is, the "Paid" track, isn't really paid. It's free as long as you get to lvl 70, which is reeeeaaaally easy. BHVR is already giving you a lot free stuff as long as you put in the time. Greedy give me more it's mine I deserve it culture...
What? I don't think asking for the free track to have more stuff, even something as simple as BP or shards, is really greedy. I paid for this game, for every DLC, bought a bunch of auric cells, bought a bunch of cosmetics. The least they can do is make the free track seem worth it.
@Zozzy said:
but then you have no reason to spend $$$$$$$
at least that is the logic they are using... In reality more would pay for the track because they get more from it.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Personally, I find that making the Free Track contain so little just makes people less interested in engaging with it at all. Which means they play the game less. But, if the Free Track now suddenly is filled to the brim with things, people feel encouraged to actually play the game to unlock tiers. Which, if they unlock enough, might make them go "you know what, I already unlocked so much of the Rift, might as well buy the Premium Track"
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1952773#Comment_1952773
Or some goddamn auric cells!!!
I mean, a small amount of extra auric cells would be neat too. Like, yeah, you get all 1k you spend on the premium pass back, but like, if you give like an extra 50 per rift or something like that, it will be a long time before you get enough to even buy a skin or something.
-
@Avarice10 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1953860#Comment_1953860
I disagree, the change they're proposing and the part you're missing is that the new OoO would be heavily reliant on the killer bringing perks or add ons that will reveal the survivor, if the Killer doesn't do this then OoO will get no use whatsoever in game, your proposed change doubles down on the fact the survivor would never get any use out of the perk if the killer does not bring any aura revealing perks/add ons.
That's why the Devs proposed the passive reveal after a period of time. I too dislike this change because it does destroy stealth, and the old OoO paired with Sole Survivor was a strong stealth perk for the last survivor. The new OoO would be extremely detrimental to solo survivor who is the last person standing.
Hence why I proposed that should they go ahead with the new OoO, then the second part of the perk should be a balanced version of the old OoO that only functions if the survivor is the obsession, if the survivor is not the obsession they wouldn't be able to use it at all, and again if the killer doesn't have any aura revealing perks a survivor who isn't the obsession would not get any use out of the perk whatsoever and that's a massive nerf when you compare it to the original. This also means a killer can counter OoO obsession ability by transferring the obsession to another survivor, negating the obsession ability to OoO.
It's really important that the new OoO is still usuable and is not overly reliant on the killer in order to function otherwise OoO really would be gutted, and I'm strongly against gutting any perk simply because the Devs are unable to balance the perk for Squads.
You underestimate how common aura revealing perks are. 99.9% of your games, the killer will have an aura reading perk. It really isn't an issue. Not only that, but it's a risk reward perk, killers have lots of those and they are doing fine. If the killer doesn't have an aura reading perk, then I think that goes in your favor most of the time. I would rather have it to where the perk is useless, because now I know the killer doesn't have aura revealing perks. Or you could pair it with MoM, proc it, and now you will have permanent aura reading of the killer.
All of this is much better than just force the perk to do something just because you are going "well, we can't have this perk just not do anything". It's okay for a perk like this to not do something from time to time, because in most games it will have an effect and in the rare case you'll have no use out of it. But, as it stands, the majority of the games the killer is bringing at least 1 aura revealing perk. I mean, heck, BBQ is the most popular killer perk for a reason.
-
@Avarice10 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1953154#Comment_1953154
Not survivors, SWF squads. If OoO is changed it's to stop SWF from giving info of where the killer is during the whole match. By reducing the range and adding a cool down to the perk it prevents SWF from abusing it because they can't give info 24/7.
It also allows survivors to maintain control over the perk which is how it should be. OoO does not need to be gutted, it just needs to be balanced for SWF. Killers don't care about OoO when it's a solo player, when it's used by Squads it becomes a problem.
I disagree, removing survivor control over when the aura gets revealed would not gut OoO, it would change its purpose, which I personally would like. However, I don't agree that the obsessions aura should be revealed every X seconds, because that removes any form of stealth. I am okay with survivors losing control over when auras get revealed, I am not okay with them losing it to the point it becomes detrimental.
That is why I like the first part, it's tit for tat, you see me, I see you and that's it. That is why I think the 2nd aspect of the perk should not be anything that lets you decide when to see the killer or have the game put you on a timer when to see it again.
To me, the first part of OoO would be just the perfect change, but because they still have tiers added to perks, it means they keep having to add unnecessary additions, just so they have a scalable parameter.
That is why I think what I proposed, have it simply extend the duration of aura reveals, would be a good change. It doesn't give power to swf (because, let's be honest, even if they added a range limit and put a time limit, that would still be too much info; plus the range would either be so far that it wouldn't matter, or too close where it is detrimental).
Also, I personally hate OoO even in solo, because it means someone sees all my actions as killer. Just because it isn't as strong as in a SWF group, doesn't mean it isn't annoying against a solo player either.
-
@Boosted_Dwight said:
Seriously what's stopping them from putting shards into some of the slots? It doesn't even need to be something crazy just put like 500 shards in a couple of the slots.
It could even just be spread out, 50 shards every level. After 20 tiers you essentially get 1k shards. Obviously I am stingy because idk how generous they want to be. Personally I'd love it if we could end up earning 5k shards or more per Rift, but to be honest, anything would be better than nothing at all.
-
@Avarice10 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1952478#Comment_1952478
I think a better fix would be to make it a hybrid between premonition and old OoO, so to clarify.
As the obsession, every 45/30/15 seconds, when you look in the killers direction, their aura is revealed to you for 3/6/9 seconds and your aura is revealed to them.
This way the survivor who is the obsession has control over when the perk activates, instead of it happening at random intervals.
I would also suggest that cool down doesn't start until after the aura reveal deactivates. So the cool down on tier 3 would actually be 24 seconds, and the cool down on tier 1 would be 48 seconds. We could also add a maximum range of within 48 meters or so, that way the obsession won't see the killer across the map.
I think the idea was to stop survivors from gaining info when THEY wanted it, which is what made OoO annoying. This change would essentially change nothing with OoO, as with the current version you can essentially do what you proposed.
-
@Diggly said:
As much as I love this, you know a lot of players would whine that the cosmetics are just slight recolors and not give a ######### that they are free
Yes, I mean, I've even seen people complain about the reskins we got now, because they are from mobile. Completely forgetting that we wanted them on PC when we saw them when they came out on mobile!
Like, I'd hope not that many people would complain, but even just adding shards and BP would be 10000x better than just having nothing.
-
I've talked about this a lot already, but I guess it's worth saying it again. I think the idea is great, specifically the first part, but it's the 2nd part that I have an issue with, because it has the same issue as old Discordance. The 2nd part doesn't objectively make it a better perk as it tiers up, depending on your playstyle.
If you are more of the stealthy type, then the lower tier will be better for you as you get revealed less. However, if you want more information for where the killer is, then the 3rd tier is best.
My proposed change to it would be to, instead, make the 2nd part read as follows: "When your aura is revealed it will last 0/1/2s longer". This means that, for example, if the killer had BBQ and saw your aura for 4s, at tier 3 he will see it for 6s, but this also means that you get to see their aura for those extra 2s. Which I think it's better than on a timer, which is completely out of your control.
Obviously some might still argue "well, first tier is better because then I won't have my aura revealed for that long", but I think it would be a better secondary addition to the perk.
On top of that, the 2nd part should not be tied just to the obsession. Just because it's called "Object of Obsession" doesn't mean the obsession has to have some special effect when using the perk. It should just increase the change of becoming the obsession and that's it.
-
- First of all, the most important thing that I think should be priority is the ability to move widgets around, which would fix a lot of issues people have with the new UI
- Besides the ability to move things where we want, we should also have the ability to scale each widget individually, since right now if you want to scale down the UI it also scales down the skillcheck and I find that to be detrimental
- The bleeding and mending bars need to be larger, because they are hard to read
- Exhaustion or any status effect that is going down needs to not be red on red, as that is hard to read, even for someone who isn't colorblind
- Character portraits should ideally have the characters cosmetics the have equipped, otherwise it makes no difference in distinguishing between different players; doing this allows for better differentiation between players
- Player states, such as injured, downed or hooked should be shown as a small symbol in a corner of the portrait, rather than replace the portrait itself, as that defeats the purpose of the portraits in the first place, in my opinion
- Allow us to completely disable certain widgets if we don't want them or even opt in for a minimalistic version of them; as a lot of the information displayed, while useful for new players, veterans have no use for them, such as reminding people what the symbol for generator means or what to do once the all gens have been completed
- Give killers the same hook counter as survivors; I understand your reasoning behind not doing that is because you believe it would encourage people to tunnel, however people do this already and they don't need a UI to tell them they are tunneling; If anything, I think it would help people in not tunneling more; Honestly, I think the total count of hooks is more detrimental as killer than helpful, as I'd much rather not have it at all if I can't have what survivors see, since I feel like I am doing bad if I don't fill that up by much, so I am essentially being taunted by the UI
- Speaking of the UI taunting you, please, remove the end game text where it goes "Brutal Killer" or "Entity Displeased"; the game should focus on the match being fun, not on how well you did! This is not a competitive game, there is no need to tell people "wow, you did a bad job".
Edit: I also wanna leave a quick comment about movement as well, I am okay with it, I think it's nice, I don't really have a problem with it. Some say it makes moonwalking hard and removes 360s and personally I am okay with that, because they don't add much to the game. The major gameplay is around chases, not moonwalking or 360-ing. I am even okay with how stiff they stand simply because I find it hilarious.
-
My advice for killers: stop running NOED, because you rely on it giving you kills instead of improving your ability to loop. You need to learn that losing is part of the process of getting good at the game. But if you constantly need NOED to feel good about yourself so you can at least get one kill, then it makes you feel entitled to kills and tells you that, no matter how bad you are, this one perk is there to give you pity kills. Do yourself a favor and take it off, you'll thank me later.
For survivors, my advice is learn to prioritize. If you see a gen, start working on it. Don't go finding totems or open chests or whatever. If you see a totem on your way to a gen and you have time, cleanse it. If the killer is good, however, just go find a gen. Healing isn't always the best strategy, you need to learn that sometimes it's better to finish a gen than heal. So next time you see a teammate working on a gen and you are injured, if the gen is almost done, rather than sit there and t-bag, waiting for the teammate to heal you, join them, finish the gen and then you can heal.
Saying that, another major advice I have for survivors is: stop using Self-Care, because you rely on it to feel the safety of being healthy too much. Which, depending on what perks killers have, it might be more of a detriment than helpful. You need to learn to be injured, sometimes for the whole game. That is just how it is. If you want to heal yourself more consistently, bring a medkit. So do yourself a favor and unequip Self-Care, you'll thank me later.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917583#Comment_1917583
better than literally no proof
you only have your words i have stats that are consistent across other discussions not just on the forums that point to people in general not liking the look of the new UI.
Your stats are flawed and biased with a small sample size. Also people who go on forums, reddit etc tend to have more negative feelings. Your "stats" are not scientific and any scientist would dismiss them if they were for an actual experiment because of the small sample size and the inherit bias in the answer. Basically, your data is skewed because people on reddit/forums go there to complain, not to be all happy-go-lucky to talk about how much they love DbD and the devs.
Basically your stats mean absolutely jack.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917554#Comment_1917554
glad to see you lost the argument by pulling a strawman, stats are a thing for a reason and it's not like all the players on the forums came here just because we hate the UI.
It's not a strawman, it's literally the truth buddy. I know it hurts to realize that 100 people agreeing with you isn't the majority of the DbD playerbase, but unfortunately that is the truth. Even if you were to add all the negative comments about the UI you will realize that, in comparison with the actual size of the DbD playerbase, the people who complained is very small. That is why they need ACTUAL stats, from the whole playerbase, rather than the vocal minority.
Btw, just because you say I lost the argument doesn't make you right, when your own proof is extremely shoddy and biased.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917465#Comment_1917465
cool troll detected, you can't deny that on all forms of communication regarding the UI it was overwhelmingly negative. denying that and proposing that we are just a singularity that has a very different opinion from the total population of players is both ridiculous and extraordinarily unlikely when we are all equal to them and all have very different opinions regarding other things.
as said you don't need to play the ptb to have a opinion on the UI it's basically a picture, go find a post or anything that has a lot of people liking the new UI with prove not just a twitter post with hearts and then you would have at least thin ice to stand on in this argument. I will pretty much always have a bigger sample size example tho that supports it being largely disliked.
if you can't do that don't bother responding because your living in a fantasy.
10 posts is hardly overwhelming when the playerbase count is in the millions, but okay. Continue living in your own bubble buddy. Not gonna change the outcome.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917355#Comment_1917355
do you think that with such a huge percentage of players not liking it within that amount means there is a good chance that the whole community will like it with a higher percentage of people?
that is like saying 1/10 for anything regarding stats doesn't matter and just by looking at anything regarding UI changes during the ptb on anything the responses where mostly negative. it is basically a fact that more people didn't like it.
yes there are cases where a small number of people from an area have a different opinions but we are all playing the same game, we are definitely not in the same location/being influenced by the environment, and all people who gave feedback saw the same thing that is basically the same as gathering a hundred random people around the world and seeing how they react to the same thing and guess what? it's overwhelmingly negative on all sources covering the UI from social media, to the forums, to even streamers.
200 players is NOT a huge percentage and yes, if 10% of people complain negatively then YES you are in the M I N O R I T Y. See, teh thing about changes is that the people whose are the most vocal are those who don't like it. People who don't care or like it won't make a comment about it. So to say "but look at all the negative comments", I'd say that yeah, that is expected with any change. People don't make posts if they are okay with a change, why would they? They are okay or don't care either way, so it doesn't affect them if it gets implemented.
But to say that the reaction was "overwhelmingly negative" is disingenuous, because you live in a bubble. You surrounded yourself with people who think like oyu and looked at posts that had the same negative feelings like you, and many of these feelings were just fueled by influencers so little kids just copy their opinions. The reality is there wasn't an "overwhelmingly negative response", you just surrounded yourself with people who think like that and just looked at forum posts that confirm your views.
A better way to test is to release it, let people adjust to it for some time and then release a survey to gather data from everybody, not just 100 Steam players. THAT is how you make changes to something, not listen to the 1%, or even 10%. Because if the majority are okay with this UI, then I'm sorry to say, the UI will stay as is.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917295#Comment_1917295
the polls on the forums one had 100-200 votes and i think the fact that on all polls i saw anywhere the result was more people not liking the new UI by a huge margin is enough to say that the community wouldn't/doesn't like it.
also its a UI not a gameplay feature all you have to do is look at it and you have a valid opinion on what you think of it no need to go onto the ptb for that.
There are millions of DbD players. MILLIONS! And you here are like "listen to 200 people because we said so?"... are you for real?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917256#Comment_1917256
They don't listen to most people, the colorblind issue actually helped confirm how hard it is to get them to listen; it's not a defense for them it's an example of how much fight and struggle it takes to have ANY communication.
So we'll have to disagree on this one, I think they still have a long way to go. This is a good step forward though.
They LITERALLY listen, like... hello? Did you not see this? The colorblind changes were clearly being developed for quite a long time judging by the screenshots they provided? How do I know this? Because the aura o the gens are not the current gen auras. So yes, they ARE listening, saying they aren't is just being 100% wrong just because you hold a grudge.
The problem isn't that they aren't listening, it's that they keep so much behind closed doors until they can go "surprise!". They literally listen to everybody, but the problem is they don't communicate their intentions as often as they should, so it feels like people are ignored.
-
What polls? The ones on reddit where 50 people voted? Give me a break... the amount of feedback offered from the PTB was minimal in comparison to the actual number of DbD players. Console users didn't even get to play with the new UI.
-
@Slickstyles said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917229#Comment_1917229
Let's not assume that everyone tunnels just because they're snowballing hard due to survivor mistakes. This happens all the time. I'm the last person to go out of my way to tunnel because I play survivor quite often myself.
If they still have DS when jumping in a locker it means they did not do anything in that time and it means they still won't do anything in that time. Which means you either tunneled them or they deliberately did not work on gens or totems or heal people just to preserve DS, so this is a win for killers. The only time you would actually be affected by DS is if you did tunnel.
-
@TheBigBingus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1917173#Comment_1917173
I think it should deactivate on a full heal. if you get half healed and the killer comes right back and downs you, I agree, that's not fair.
The healing part is YOU start healing someone, not if you get healed. So the incentive is for yourself to get healed first by teammates rather than self-care.
@[Deleted User] said:
It took years.
Meanwhile the UI feedback is being totally ignored.
Idk, it definitely makes me think a bit better of them, but they absolutely do still ignore a lot of the community. I wouldn't say totally ignore though, this proves they do listen to some degree.
It just takes, WAY more than it should to get through to them.
They already said they did hear feedback about the UI and while nothing major will change since the PTB it's because they want to hear the feedback from EVERYBODY, not just a few select PC players. However, they did hear people's complaints on colorblind issues with the new UI, so there will be some changes done with those.
The devs are clearly listening all the time, just because they don't talk about everything they hear and want to do, doesn't mean they aren't listening.
-
I agree, the game needs to expand on its settings, especially graphic ones. I can imagine how some lower end PCs could disable some of the more taxing effects to save on performance. It has been 4 years, I think it's time these were implemented. Especially now that you can't edit the config files anymore, these changes are needed more than ever.
Some people have raised concerns over how Antialiasing gives them headaches. While I don't get them, I can't argue against them. AA is such a simple graphics setting, it has no effect on gameplay and should just be a graphics option.
-
The archive is supposed to offer BP rewards as well, are they substantial enough for the game to not feel as grindy as it currently does, or is that just the first step in a longer process of adjusting grind so it's not as harsh and obvious?
-
Is it possible to get the survival rate and kill rate of players proportional to their playtime? (that's right, not rank, but actual hours invested in the game)
-
Are Vigo and Benedict still in the fog and full of hope?