Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
Carnival is a Roman festival.
-
@Angelicus23 said:
I report everyone that comment ######### about anyone, also I reported that streamer on twitch, but nothing hapoened. If BH asks me for his twitch channel I'll tell themKeep reporting them. No game or website will ban people for a single offense, at least in most cases.
-
Report them.
-
@Slayer said:
@Orion said:
Punishing players for not using counters is not bad design. This is like saying that if a player refuses to use grabs/throws in a fighting game, then that makes blocking bad game design.Cleansing totems isnt really a counter. Killer just trades insta down to secondary objectives in that case.
Does it prevent the usage of the perk? Yes. Therefore, it's a counter.
Does it have an opportunity cost, like literally every action in the game? Also yes. -
@Eveline said:
Awesome is the new LOL. I think.But only for things that are actually funny, so it all worked out.
-
Punishing players for not using counters is not bad design. This is like saying that if a player refuses to use grabs/throws in a fighting game, then that makes blocking bad game design.
-
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.Anything you said can apply to anything on the forums. It just sounds to me that because it was a LOL button that people cried over it.
Really? So people are running bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users?
We're not talking about the possibility of abuse; we're talking about the actual abuse of this feature.The same can apply to a vote up or awesome in a counter post/counter comment. Its clear that because it was a LOL button and that it was heavily implying to whoever it was used on was "a joke." And as such that hurt someones feelings. So it was removed mainly due to that fact.
I'll ask you again: are people actively using bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users? Because if not, then no, the same doesn't apply.
No, as of now no. That doesn't mean it can't happen though either now can it?
Indeed, but do you think we should act on the hypothetical (and unlikely) scenario you've made up, or on the reality that we currently live in?
Because the reality is, it's impossible to automate such a system with positive reactions, because it'd require a bot that could read and interpret text to figure out if a comment was agreeing or disagreeing with a certain user. Anyone who could create such a bot wouldn't be using it to troll forum users; they'd be working for Alphabet, or Facebook, or the NSA, or the CIA, or the FBI, or literally any entity whose job description is to analyze and process data.What in the [BAD WORD] are you talking about? We're talking about scenarios Orion... Sce-Nar-ios... The fact that it CAN happen means it probably WILL happen! This is why people take steps to prevent that even if its unpreventable... And we're not talking about complex A.I. we're talking about man operated bots...
You're taking this way to far to prove a point...
No, we're talking about automated bots, which is what actually happened. That's how the "LOL" ratings increased so quickly.
I could imagine a scenario where you post something bannable and get banned. Should you be banned as a precaution? That's the same logic you're advocating in regards to the remaining reaction buttons. -
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.Anything you said can apply to anything on the forums. It just sounds to me that because it was a LOL button that people cried over it.
Really? So people are running bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users?
We're not talking about the possibility of abuse; we're talking about the actual abuse of this feature.The same can apply to a vote up or awesome in a counter post/counter comment. Its clear that because it was a LOL button and that it was heavily implying to whoever it was used on was "a joke." And as such that hurt someones feelings. So it was removed mainly due to that fact.
I'll ask you again: are people actively using bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users? Because if not, then no, the same doesn't apply.
No, as of now no. That doesn't mean it can't happen though either now can it?
Indeed, but do you think we should act on the hypothetical (and unlikely) scenario you've made up, or on the reality that we currently live in?
Because the reality is, it's impossible to automate such a system with positive reactions, because it'd require a bot that could read and interpret text to figure out if a comment was agreeing or disagreeing with a certain user. Anyone who could create such a bot wouldn't be using it to troll forum users; they'd be working for Alphabet, or Facebook, or the NSA, or the CIA, or the FBI, or literally any entity whose job description is to analyze and process data. -
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.Anything you said can apply to anything on the forums. It just sounds to me that because it was a LOL button that people cried over it.
Really? So people are running bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users?
We're not talking about the possibility of abuse; we're talking about the actual abuse of this feature.The same can apply to a vote up or awesome in a counter post/counter comment. Its clear that because it was a LOL button and that it was heavily implying to whoever it was used on was "a joke." And as such that hurt someones feelings. So it was removed mainly due to that fact.
I'll ask you again: are people actively using bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users? Because if not, then no, the same doesn't apply.
-
@Master said:
@Orion said:
@Master said:
@Orion said:
@Master said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.What about the upvote or awesome button.
People couldnt use bots to boost it by hundreds?Is it really that surprising that the toxic elements in the community would rather try to bring others down than lift themselves up?
So what about the flag button then?
That cant be abused?I could do this all day, you could even run a script that generates automatic responses..... with that logic you would have to remove the whole forum because it can be abused
Read what I said. I didn't say it could be abused, I said it was being abused. The mods eventually decided having the "LOL" button around was doing more harm than good, so it was removed.
Allow me one question.
Why is stuff like that not ok in the forums, but in the game itself such stuff is totally ok. (take tbagging and flashlight clicking as example, no gameplay impact)Do I look like a mod or dev?
-
@FireHazard said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.Anything you said can apply to anything on the forums. It just sounds to me that because it was a LOL button that people cried over it.
Really? So people are running bots to spam other reactions to try to make it seem like a large number of people disagree with certain users?
We're not talking about the possibility of abuse; we're talking about the actual abuse of this feature. -
@Master said:
@Orion said:
@Master said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.What about the upvote or awesome button.
People couldnt use bots to boost it by hundreds?Is it really that surprising that the toxic elements in the community would rather try to bring others down than lift themselves up?
So what about the flag button then?
That cant be abused?I could do this all day, you could even run a script that generates automatic responses..... with that logic you would have to remove the whole forum because it can be abused
Read what I said. I didn't say it could be abused, I said it was being abused. The mods eventually decided having the "LOL" button around was doing more harm than good, so it was removed.
-
@Master said:
@Orion said:
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.What about the upvote or awesome button.
People couldnt use bots to boost it by hundreds?Is it really that surprising that the toxic elements in the community would rather try to bring others down than lift themselves up?
-
It was removed because it was being heavily abused. Several people were running bots that spammed other users' comments with "LOL" reactions, increasing the amount they had by hundreds (in one case thousands) overnight. It was decided it was best to remove it.
-
Because it's easily counterable, and therefore when you get caught, you know it's your own fault. However, humans generally blame other people (their teammates, the killer, the devs) before they blame themselves.
-
There are three other survivors in the lobby, just saying. If a killer instantly leaves as soon as you join, that means they made the decision to do so before you even showed up, and thus it has nothing to do with you.
-
@Vietfox said:
It's just a damn game.That oughta teach the OP for being anxious about the game! Nothing like a little unwarranted aggression to put someone at ease, am I right?
OP, just ignore everyone. You don't owe them anything, and they'll complain no matter what you do.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
The effects with the parts would be the same, but not the effects without the parts, and therein lies the problem. Base generator repair time should not be increased in any way, period, end of story.It shouldn't be, if it were the only option, since that option would be boring. Maybe 100 seconds is boring, maybe 80 seconds is boring too.
What we are sure of is that the TOTAL Objective time should be increased. Previously, this time equalled Generator time (ignoring exit gates).
Either the timer had to be increased or the amount of generators needed would have to be increased.
The problem here is whether it's mandated to do something boring:In our version it isn't. In the example I give, every part eliminated circa 15 seconds of generator time. What if this was 40 seconds for the 1st part? and generators took 120 seconds?
The players do have the freedom, but they also have the freedom to use toolboxes and reduce that 120 back to 80, resulting in a similar gen-time which we'd call "on the gen-boringness bliss point".
Offering freedom is a very useful tool: If they don't want to repair long generators then they will collect parts (to the degree collecting them is more beneficial as determined by the ratio's).
Offering them to spend a lot of time on a generator simultaneously allows them to use toolboxes on certain generators and still have Gen-Rushing not be that big of an issue.What people will quickly learn = early game means collecting parts. After about 1/2(really depending on our ratio's) they'll start working on it, but can still skip this phase if they have the toolboxes strong enough to tank through 80+ gens.
(The Part system of course is also lessening the use of toolboxes, big gen times may be part of keeping them relevant, yet healthy)
First of all, it's not "our" version, it's "your" version, unless you're using the royal "we".
Increasing the base generator repair time will not work, period. There's nothing to be discussed here.
Yes, the total objective time needs to be increased, that's why any additional objective must be mandatory.
Optional objectives only provide an increase in objective time once in a blue moon, since they are, by definition, optional, and few people will do them. Again, this is not debatable.
We already have plenty of optional objectives, all of which provide a clear in-game advantage (totems and chests), which was pointed out in another thread, but survivors simply don't do them because they are optional.Someone with a gun to their head doesn't have any freedom; not really. You want to hold a gun to people's heads, saying that if they don't do what you want, you're going to make sure they suffer. That doesn't work. Either you go all the way and make it part of the obligatory gameplay, which will make people accept it more easily, or you don't do it. Adding in forced optional objectives will just piss people off.
-
@MPGamer18 said:
I thought PS4 disconnects were bad until I started playing on PC last night. I've played about 10 matches and there has been a disconnect in every single one of them. Granted I'm new on PC and only a rank 17 ...is this an issue at lower ranks?It's an issue at all ranks, I'm afraid. If anything, it gets worse at high ranks.
-
@NoShinyPony said:
You forget to mention that you never camp + tunnel.Please, I win with the Wraith without uncloaking, stuck in a sensory deprivation tank (so I can't see nor hear what's going on). I can't even touch my mouse and keyboard; I move them by the power of my will alone.
Get on my level. -
@Tsulan said:
Joke is on you.
Romania has better internet than the rest of Europe.Probably most of the western world, in fact.
-
@Claudette_Baguette said:
Agree, DCs have to be punished but the ranking has to be fixed first and other unfun thigns in this game because people DC because of broken stuff, facecamp, ebony moris, 3 blink nurses etcPeople DC because they can't handle losing. What's broken about a killer doing nothing for 2 full minutes? It's not fun, I'll grant you that, but losing isn't supposed to be fun.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionBase generator repair time is already at the maximum tolerable limit (and maybe a touch beyond that). Effectively forcing people to get these parts by making the alternative much, much worse, is worse than just forcing them to get these parts.
Worse? the effects would be the exact same. There's simply just more freedom in the 2nd approach as both translate into each other.
The effects with the parts would be the same, but not the effects without the parts, and therein lies the problem. Base generator repair time should not be increased in any way, period, end of story.
-
@captainlongshlong said:
I read somewhere on here that bans don't start getting handed out until you DC 35%-40% of your games. Although I don't know how credible that was.It's a made-up number.
I'd agree with your suggestion if the reset were daily rather than weekly, given those numbers. -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@JanTheMan said:
Survivors should have to, at least install one part to start working on a gen.The problem with that is it removes choice and thus some of the excitement.
I wouldn't ever make a part MANDATED. There is a better (less obvious) solution that requires no structural change:
Bump up the generator time + change ratio's between multipliers.
Let's say we make gen-time 100 seconds. But simultaneously we also make the first 1(/2) parts significantly more beneficial, thus never forcing anything upon people, yet making the part system part of the meta.
Base generator repair time is already at the maximum tolerable limit (and maybe a touch beyond that). Effectively forcing people to get these parts by making the alternative much, much worse, is worse than just forcing them to get these parts.
-
@se05239 said:
Why go through the extra hassle of installing a part when a generator still only takes 80 seconds to repair without any parts?That is the problem with any and all optional objectives. To make them worthwhile, you'd also have to make them absurdly overpowered. That's why I'd prefer something like this:
@JanTheMan said:
Survivors should have to, at least install one part to start working on a gen.If they're not forced to do it, or if it's not absurdly overpowered, then they won't do it.
-
@Vietfox said:
So you mean that killer wouldn't know in what generator are those parts installed? Works for me.Not unless they physically traveled to the generator's location and saw the generator itself.
-
@Vietfox said:
Assuming i understood that well i would remove the notification system when installing a "part", that sounds like a free notification perk to me.I think he meant that the generator model would be altered in some way to show that the generator had an additional part, but the killer would still have to be physically there, observing the generator, to see it.
-
The Entity is your standard Lovecraftian eldritch abomination, as Plu said. She feeds out of necessity, as do we all, but She is also looking for a way to invade "our world" so She can consume it entirely. At the moment, She is simply gaining strength.
-
@XeroIdea said:
I know my skills at the game, I'm not good at running Spirit killers. I'm decent at looping but could be better and at the same time, I loop only if I need too. Like I said, I know my skills and what I'm bad at. I just don't like when people assume that they know what they're talking about, as if they know me when they don't. It's just rude.Question: How would you feel if people constantly berated any and all skills you have in games by assuming that you're not good at the game, and they did that all the time?
It doesn't sound all that great of an idea and would get annoying fast, wouldn't it? Some people would care, some wouldn't. I find that it's just rude, which then comes full circle as to how the community of this game is rather more toxic than before, in my opinion of course.
Even assuming you know your skills, you don't seem aware of the existing counters to everything you're complaining about. So even if you have the skill, you don't have the knowledge, and knowledge is required to get better at the game.
If people offered constructive criticism (which often involves pointing out where I'm ######### up), I'd be glad. DocOctober's opening may have been too aggressive for your liking, but he was just being blunt; i.e.: just like you. He then offered constructive criticism.
-
@Michiko said:
Do you have over 200 PING?Please learn how ping works.
-
@XeroIdea said:
@DocOctober said:
@XeroIdea said:
Stealth Myers and Amazing Nurses are the hardest to fight against. The doctor, as your picture shows, which must mean you play him, is broken which then you with either argue against that, agree, or go off on some other kind of tangent. Up to you where it goes, I have already said my opinion. If you didn't like what I had to say then why post in the first place? Ever heard of, if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all? Common sense still applies, it's just hardly ever used anymore.I very recently played against a high ranked, wallhacking stealth Myers on The Game. It was easy, open eyes and a good set of headphones to listen for his breathing made it an exhilarating game that I did escape from through the Gates.
It comes down to experience and to me, it seems that you aren't as good at the game as you think you are. The general consensus amongst seasoned players is that the Shape is a mid to high-mid tier Killer, but definitely not as strong as a skilled Hillbilly or a Nurse.
Also, common sense says that this is a public forum and anyone can discuss stuff, whether or not you like it. You said you're blunt, well, I was too. I don't care for that silly rule you mentioned.
See it's that kind of talk that makes people toxic. When you tell someone "it seems that you aren't as good at the game as you think you are", you are no doubt insulting them. I have played the game since is started and stopped not too long ago. Would you like me to apologize for not continuing to play the game since the community isn't all that friendly and cares more about who can get the most salt? Nah, the game is not fun because the community is not fun.
Also, I don't see how you were able to play against a hacker since the server should have disconnected you from their lobby anyways because the killer had a software advantage. You never answered my question though DocOctober, do you play the Doctor? If so, why?
Dude, sometimes, people are just bad at the game. For example, I'm bad at chasing through corn. If a survivor runs into the corn, they might as well be gone. I recognize and accept that. If people can't accept that the skill they think they have is different from the skill they actually have, it doesn't mean it's toxic to remind them of the skill they really have.
-
When I use Rancor, I seem to run into the obsession every single time.
-
@Eveline said:
So points don't matter. You are better player if you hide in a locker whole game and better killer if you get one survivor and camp them.The survivor who was never seen (assuming there were chances for them to get spotted, obviously, as opposed to the killer never even showing up in their vicinity) is better at stealth than the one who was spotted, yes. And the killer who wins a chase is better at chases than the survivor who lost them, yes.
If you fail at an aspect of the game, you are objectively worse at that aspect than someone who succeeded at that same aspect. -
@Eveline said:
Wow you are so delusional if you think that someone who can escape urban evading the whole time doing nothing and person who can keep the killer busy and pip at the end even hooked are winner and loser.One of them won at stealth, the other lost at stealth and lost the chase. So yes, I do think the former is a winner and the latter is a loser because they are objectively so, in regards to stealth and chases.
-
@FireHazard said:
Roblox will kill DBD watch out.Please. Clearly, Tetris is the real DbD killer. It's much more stressful and horrifying when you get an L block despite needing a line piece.
-
@Eveline said:
Still doesn't mean that survivor that ecapes is better than one on the hook.If it makes you feel better to think that the guy who won is worse than the guy who lost, then by all means, continue to do so. It won't change reality, though.
-
Except that's not up to DbD devs, but rather Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo.
-
@Eveline said:
Lets see. Killers are faster, some can down you instantly. Aura reading etc.Very easy to escape the killer without being hooked once with those odds.
You don't lose to someone who's less skilled than you are unless RNG is heavily tilted against you (bad draws in card games, bad dice rolls in games with dice, etc.). You lose when you are worse than the other guy. It's that simple.
-
@Eveline said:
Problem is you can be camped by bad killer but you can't be looped forever by bad survivor.
If a survivor is camped, it means the killer won a chase. If the killer won a chase, it means the survivor was worse than the killer. You can't be camped by a killer who is worse than you are.
-
@RuneStarr said:
We're finally breaking them. Shirtless everyone by 2020.By 2025, everyone will be naked and anatomically correct.
-
@Warlock_2020 said:
You will see little sympathy from the killer main dominated boards. They even eat other killer mains who don't agree with them. Camping is toxic. It is a horrible gameplay experience when done all the time. There are instances where camping truly is strategic. Like when gens are done, or hook swarming. I'd even say that when you hook that one flashlight bearing, ds having guy that has followed all game just to try to interrupt you. Ensuring that kill means he can't interrupt you anymore. (Looking at you, Mr. Rank 2 in a match vs Rank 14 killers.)Fact is, it is boring and eliminates the fun of playing the game when someone hard camps/tunnels from the start. Git gud does not apply as I have e yet to see anyone so good at survivor that they can't be caught.
It is what it is though. I just try to ignore campers, teabaggers and other toxic bs.
Losing isn't supposed to be fun or provide the same benefits as winning. If it were, it'd be functionally indistinguishable from winning.
-
@XavierBoah17 said:
Yeah it should award bonus BP or something to whoever you gave props to. (Exclude it from SWF and can be used twice by surviviors and once by killer)If you're gonna make it fair, it should be usable four times by killer and once by survivors, or each survivor props should only give 25% BP, compared to killer props.
-
@PhantomMask20763 said:
Watch out for them boi snatchers, you gotta make your move. My bf is a real cutie so I'm lucky I got with him in time. I think it's more that we share common interests though instead of looksIn my case, it's that he and I think almost exactly alike, which is a first for me.
-
@AntiJelly said:
@Orion said:
@PhantomMask20763 said:
You'll get a special other eventually. It took a while to get a bf for me but he came around eventually
It's like they hide under rocks or something, to avoid detection. That's why I put a chip in mine ASAP.
I mean, you could just use small game to find one. It only has a cooldown of like 10 seconds.
I already have the one I want. I just need to keep track of him, make sure nobody tries to take him away.
-
@Paiz said:
@Orion said:
@PhantomMask20763 said:
You'll get a special other eventually. It took a while to get a bf for me but he came around eventuallyIt's like they hide under rocks or something, to avoid detection. That's why I put a chip in mine ASAP.
You don't just keep yours on the hook in the basement?
He has all the holes I need already.
-
@PhantomMask20763 said:
You'll get a special other eventually. It took a while to get a bf for me but he came around eventuallyIt's like they hide under rocks or something, to avoid detection. That's why I put a chip in mine ASAP.
-
@AntiJelly said:
@Orion said:
@AntiJelly said:
@Orion said:
@AntiJelly said:
@DuckApproved said:
Alright when is this event gonna show up, anyone know?The devs are trying to avoid doing any more double bp events, as it just leads to people farming.
Have they actually said this?
I'm almost certain. Maybe they didn't say why, put I recall them saying they don't like to do double bp events.
So, at best, they only said they don't like to do double BP events, but you decided to attribute your own reason to that as if it'd been their exact words.
Why else wouldn't they want to do double bps?
Off the top of my head:
- Devoting resources to creating other, better events
- They're reducing the grind (and thus the need for double BP events)
-
@AntiJelly said:
@Orion said:
@AntiJelly said:
@DuckApproved said:
Alright when is this event gonna show up, anyone know?The devs are trying to avoid doing any more double bp events, as it just leads to people farming.
Have they actually said this?
I'm almost certain. Maybe they didn't say why, put I recall them saying they don't like to do double bp events.
So, at best, they only said they don't like to do double BP events, but you decided to attribute your own reason to that as if it'd been their exact words.
-
@AntiJelly said:
@DuckApproved said:
Alright when is this event gonna show up, anyone know?The devs are trying to avoid doing any more double bp events, as it just leads to people farming.
Have they actually said this?