Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
TL;DR: He looped a killer for 3 generators, and then the killer farmed with the other two guys (one disconnected at the start).
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionOption 1:
People who perform unsafe unhooks are put in the Dying state and become afflicted with the Broken status effect for the remainder of the trial. Unsafe unhooks are redefined to "An unhook where the person who was unhooked is hit by the Killer after less than 10 seconds".Survivors will go back to working on generators like they're supposed to, and camping will be punished by the Survivors, just like it's supposed to be.
This makes camping worse. Out of respect I ignored this one as a solution to "solve camping" and read it as an attempt to stop unsafe unhooking.
You avoided my comment again. Read it with the red text. The explanation and reasoning shows that I misspoke because saying you would have increased the timer would've made camping less prevalent.
I'm not sure why you are so attached to pretending that I don't "understand" an elementary idea of making something go faster the further you are away.
Camping emerged as an issue primarily in response to unsafe unhooks. In other words, the primary cause of camping is unsafe unhooks. The two are connected. Stopping unsafe unhooks would make camping less worthwhile for the killer by default (in the long run), since it would push survivors to rush gens like they're supposed to when the killer is camping.
If you don't even know what causes camping, how do you expect to know how to fix it?Yes, I ignored your comment again because, as I've explained, I was speaking only of my first suggestion. That's three times now I've had to explain to you that I'm speaking of my first suggestion while you address the second.
I'm not attached to anything. It's a demonstrable fact that you don't understand it. You've said multiple times that I want to increase or slow down the hook timer, which simply isn't true. Nowhere is that on either suggestion. And yet you keep bringing it up, time and time again.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThe example is still wrong because it hinges on the assumption that survivors would be hook rushing anyway.
Yours hinges on the assumption that they don't. And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the PRESSURE on unhooking.
Edit: When I screw up 1 tiny word but the reasoning remains constant with the right analysis of your suggestion, why don't you respond to that analysis instead?
High mobility killers can quickly increase the timer and abuse this mechanic.
It creates a weird situation in which you do properly incentivise the killer to leave the hook (when nobody is nearby), but simultaneously, by making hooks go faster, you also Do incentivise for faster unhooks, which promotes camping.
Your suggestion both helps Tru3Ta1ent like players and manages to help campers at the same time.
It's quite weird when you think about it.Right now there is no penalty for unsafe unhooks except for the guy who was unhooked, which is absurd.
I agree but it's somewhat (not completely) of a separate issue, but I think this would be the 3rd variable mentioned in the OP.
If a survivor would unhook a survivor just for that survivor to be transported to another place, then that would make the un-hooker victim of their own doings.I don't say we should, but it's definitely funning thinking about it.
When you demonstrate you haven't actually read what I said, I don't respond because you're not responding either. To respond presupposes that you've actually read what is being said to you and are addressing it. If you show me you haven't done either, I see no reason why I should put in more effort than you.
For example, note how you're addressing my second suggestion, even though I explicitly said that only my first could be tested easily (even in KYF). I'm left to conclude that either you don't know the difference between "first" and "second", which is absurd, or you're not really concerned with what I've said and just want an echo chamber. -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the timer.Let me know when you've actually read my suggestion.
-
If you don't give them a free unhook, it's camping.
-
@PiiFree said:
We should keep in mind that the idea is not just limited to the non-progressive hooks.Other mechanics would come in place to make up for the lack of pressure of hooks.
Being able to put a Survivor into the next hook stage by hooking another Survivor doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. It would pressure survivors to unhook quickly to prevent this from happening.
The only problem I see is that certain Killers like Nurse, Billy, Spirit*, Huntress would profit from such a solution while others, already weak ones, would suffer (looking at Leatherface, Wraith, Trapper...).
If having two survivors hooked simultaneously would make both their timers decrease by 50% of the maximum (the equivalent of one full hook stage), without any other modifications, I would support this, but it still wouldn't help camping. Any half-decent survivor can run from the killer for the <2 seconds it takes to unhook another survivor. This would only affect newbies, who'd be driven away from the game.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase.Nope. Read what I actually wrote.
Oops, misspoke due to the lengty talk, but the example got it right anyways;
In vanilla: after 120 seconds (slightly less) of the others crouching up in the killer, they lose their teammate and complain.
In your version: after (as a result of your mechanic) still 120 seconds of others crouching: their teammates die and people continue to have a negative experience.Can't deny that I understand this simple (and heavily flawed) suggestion.
It doesn't address camping. Camping works just as great as always, since you mentioned that relative balance would be unaffected.
The example is still wrong because it hinges on the assumption that survivors would be hook rushing anyway. However, with such a heavy penalty for unsafe unhooks (dying state+endless Broken), they would instead repair generators, just as the Entity intended. Right now there is no penalty for unsafe unhooks except for the guy who was unhooked, which is absurd.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase.Nope. Neither of my suggestions involve increasing the hook timer. Read what I actually wrote.
-
My first suggestion can be tested fairly easily, even in KYF, and would produce much better results, since it's actually different from what has been tried.
-
That's an exploit that's been going around. Report them once the game ends.
-
Did you report them for holding the game hostage? Also, bug/exploit reports go here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/categories/bug-report-ps4
All you're doing now is making sure everyone can abuse the exploit.
-
You're confusing "listening" for "doing". Yes, they listen, but they also disagree with a lot of the stuff that's said, so they don't do it. And hell, maybe the problem isn't the event, but rather a deeper issue that's been plaguing the game since its release, and the event was just the last straw.
Just because you think it's a great idea doesn't mean the person you're telling it to has to do what you say. -
Last I heard, survivors are the ones having long queue times.
-
@ibanezadict said:
Is that item efficiency it decreases?No, the base repair speed of each individual survivor is decreased by 10%, so with two survivors on the same gen, each is repairing at 90% of the base speed, but the total is 180% (still an overall net increase).
-
@OGlilSPOOK20 said:
I understand that I "guess" I have to take one for the team in order for them to gen rush the killer, but the downside of this is that "I" "Me" "Myself" yes... I want to enjoy the game too. It's the killers that come into a trail purposely planning to camp the first person they see that pisses me off dude. 😡That's exactly the mentality that brought about camping as an issue. Survivors didn't want to bite the bullet, so instead they made camping worthwhile for Killers and blamed Killers for taking advantage of their bad plays.
-
@OGlilSPOOK20 said:
Oh no a survivor has a flashlight whatever shall I do... I know I'll just use Franklin's Demise! I play both Killer and Survivor dude... Maybe you should use the perk... It actually works.Franklin's Demise for flashlights, Ruin and NOED for genrush, Whispers for when the last Survivor tries to hold the game hostage, Bloodwarden to punish exit gate trolls, A Nurse's Calling and Sloppy Butcher for Self-Care, Enduring for Decisive Strike. That's seven perks so far. Now all we need is more perk slots for Killer.
-
Your opponent doesn't have to care which tactics you agree and disagree with. That's like going into a tennis tournament and demanding your opponents all hop on one foot while playing against you.
Camping already has a solution, but it requires work on the Survivors' behalf.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
That's the right mindset. And exactly that bit. But we want to ensure there is nothing there was to gain by forgetting in the first place; to eliminate exactly that.So you want "hook and forget" to become the default, but you don't want to provide any incentive for doing so? How do you suppose that's going to work, exactly?
-
@Rebel_Raven said:
It's an idea that is long overdue. I'm not sure why the devs hadn't applied it.
Surely survivors wouldn't protest so hard as to prevent the option?They've already protested in another thread.
-
Option 1:
People who perform unsafe unhooks are put in the Dying state and become afflicted with the Broken status effect for the remainder of the trial. Unsafe unhooks are redefined to "An unhook where the person who was unhooked is hit by the Killer after less than 10 seconds".Survivors will go back to working on generators like they're supposed to, and camping will be punished by the Survivors, just like it's supposed to be.
Option 2:
Sacrifice speed is increased by 0.5% for every meter the Killer is away from the hook (starting at 16 meters). Killer becomes Hasted for a short time every time they hook a different Survivor. Killer also gains increased recovery speed from both hits and misses for a short time after hooking any Survivor; this effect is strongest in a 2-meter radius around the hook, where recovery is instantaneous, but distance from the hook does not otherwise affect this status."Hook and forget" playstyle becomes preferential, hook vultures heavily punished.
-
@BigBadPiggy said:
But if the perks that come with that character are good, they will still buy it. KYF could be used as a testing grounds kinda like the ptb. Plus, you don’t even get blood points or pips while playing KYF. You need too pay for the character and play normal matches to get their perks. There will always be a reason too buy the characters.No, they wouldn't, because KYF would come with everything unlocked.
-
@LegitAdventurer said:
I'm honestly really confused as to how you disagree with what im saying. If killing and surviving were all that mattered in this game then there wouldn't be hunting, boldness, objective, altruism etc etc points.It's because this game is so well rounded that its fun. If all you had to do as a survivor was survive no one would look for chases, or do gens, or save anyone.
Same with killers, all of them would camp and tunnel. But there are other ways to get points, because winning isn't just killing or surviving. Its doing well in the game, yano?
I disagree with your definition of winning because it's based on your goals as a point farmer, which are not the same as my goals. I literally said it was your prerogative to define winning at the game how you want, even if it involves losing at the role you're playing. However, pretending that your definition is somehow objective is absurd.
-
@LegitAdventurer said:
Games are played for points. If you get alot of points that means you did well in the game. Why are you bringing the English language into it like that somehow changes the fact that this is a game? LolFor example, as a survivor if i do no gens, save no one, heal no one, hide the whole match and survive, i get no points and basically thats losing the game.
As a killer if you get a 4k. But you end chases really quick, camp till they die and only get one hook a piece, never kick gens, or anything. You'll end with no points and get entity displeased even tho you got a 4k.
Thats losing no matter what way you look at it haha
If you wanna define losing at a role as winning at the game, that's your prerogative.
-
@LegitAdventurer said:
Facts. You don't have to survive as survivor to win. I die as a survivor constantly. I'm actually terrible at avoiding the killer lmao. I also play survivor with that same initiative. I'm a point farmer as survivor as well. As long as i get like 2 or 3 unhooks a couple team gens and some healing and boldness points, I'm happy wether i die or survive lol.Good for you. That still doesn't change the English language (or any language, really), wherein "killer" and "survivor" are not synonyms of "point farmer".
-
@LegitAdventurer said:
You don't need to get kills to be a good killer.Inversely, by your own logic, you don't need to survive to be a good survivor, yet you advise gen rushing and leaving (surviving) ASAP. So either you've redefined what a killer is (note: in the English language, "killer" is not a synonym of "point farmer"), or you just don't want killers to be a threat.
-
It wouldn't take much to organize a large group that would play KYF in random lobbies, thus negating the purpose of those characters being paid in the first place.
-
@venom12784 said:
Yeah but better cause is dbdThis idea is terrible and created a lot of problems for every asymmetrical game that had it. Forcing people to play a role they don't want (or, alternatively, denying them the role they do want) is absurd.
-
@Sheldor said:
It didnt when I bought itDid you actually read the EULA before you bought the game?
-
Yes, NOED is a perk that affects noob Survivors who don't know they should break the totems.
-
@Sheldor said:
@Orion said:
It's not up to your opponent to make your game "fun".
Au contraire, mon ami. It absolutely is. Most people just play for fun and if the killer player denies the other side their part completey, what point is there in finishing a round ?
Try entering a bar and asking 4 strangers for a round of pool billard. Never hand them the queue or the white ball. If you are lucky, they will just walk away. If not you might need a good dentist.
Here's an analogous situation to my statement, since yours is more akin to lobby dodging (albeit barely):
Play football against a much better team who scores goals in ways you don't know how to counter because you've never developed the skills necessary to counter the strategies they're using, and then complain that it's not fair if they don't let you score goals as well.Survivors do not end up on the hook spontaneously. Killers had to find them and win the chase before they could be hooked. If someone was hooked, then they failed at stealth and lost the chase.
-
@Master said:
@brokedownpalace said:
With the last few patches on PS4 the update will download super fast and then it will say "Copying..." It's now taking 3 times longer to "copy" the update than it takes to download it. Is this a problem on the devs side or is it a Sony thing? Can anything be done about it?That has been a thing for ages now (at least on PC). Its the way the game is coded, really un-optimised
This has nothing to do with how the game is coded; it's about software and hardware limitations.
That said, games usually grow bigger and bigger with every update because rather than really update the code, developers go with the cheaper option, which is to add a completely separate piece of code and replace the necessary references. While this makes the patch install more quickly, it also leaves a bunch of unnecessary crap behind.
DbD devs decided to do it properly and actually replace what needs replacing, which does mean that the associated hardware and software has to work a little longer to install, but also means you get a much smaller filesize. -
@TAG said:
I think OP just means that they don't want to change their build to add more Obsession perks.I know.
-
@BACKSTABBER said:
@thesuicidefox said:
Here's an idea. You want to be the obsession? Run more obsession perks!ok gimme a 5th perk slot then cuz my build is impossible to change
See, now that is a bug. You should be able to remove perks at will and change your build.
-
@AlexAnarchy said:
@Sinner said:
So far, every hint they posted for previous killers was actually tied to it, I don't see why Mali would just be the internal name this time and not an actual hint, when she said it was a hint.Remember when they said the next killer was gonna be the one furthest back in the past? Then we got the millenial killer aka legion...
The one after the Legion was taken from the furthest point in the past, relative to all the others we've had up until this point.
-
I support the AFK crow timer being paused if you're within a certain distance of the Killer (but not based on TR), without any notification that this is occurring. Stealth sometimes requires you to stay hidden and wait for an opportunity to move, and it's not like you can make the Killer leave or look elsewhere by default.
That said, it would need some exceptions, mainly surrounding hatch stand-offs and when there's only one Survivor remaining. Also, Diversion was created exactly for situations like this.
-
I reported your other thread (and this one, before I realized what it was). I misunderstood both threads, and I sincerely apologize.
-
@ReneAensland said:
@Orion said:
@ReneAensland said:
@Orion said:
@ReneAensland said:
@Master said:
Sucks when no killer wants to play with you anymore, guess now you realize that you cant play the game with your own
Funny how you vote up your own comment.
You can't use reactions on your own comments. I won't comment on the rest because I think it'd only make it worse.
I never asked you to comment.
So.....what?It's an open forum, anyone can comment. I was trying to (politely) correct you so you wouldn't go around making false accusations in the future.
I honestly don't care whether you comment or not, I don't understand why you would assume I would care if you commented.
It's an open forum, sure but...do you have to announce when you're going to comment or when you'll be witholding?I wasn't "announcing"; I was explaining so as not to seem nitpicky. Take a chill pill.
-
@ReneAensland said:
@Orion said:
@ReneAensland said:
@Master said:
Sucks when no killer wants to play with you anymore, guess now you realize that you cant play the game with your ownFunny how you vote up your own comment.
You can't use reactions on your own comments. I won't comment on the rest because I think it'd only make it worse.
I never asked you to comment.
So.....what?It's an open forum, anyone can comment. I was trying to (politely) correct you so you wouldn't go around making false accusations in the future.
-
@ReneAensland said:
@Master said:
Sucks when no killer wants to play with you anymore, guess now you realize that you cant play the game with your ownFunny how you vote up your own comment.
You can't use reactions on your own comments. I won't comment on the rest because I think it'd only make it worse.
-
@Yamaoka said:
I'm asking you to back up your claims. You claimed people can hack on console just just they do on PC. Everyone has seen videos of DBD hackers who play on PC but at the same time there's not even one single video of a dbd hacker on console so obviously your statement is not true. Hacking dbd on console is not possible. If it was possible I would have seen a hacker at least once given the fact I've been playing dbd for thousands of hours so far as killer and survivor.Hacking on console is possible, it's just that most people don't bother with it. So no, you wouldn't necessarily have encountered any, because even on PC they're a minority.
I also can't provide videos of people hacking for the same reason you can't - it's against the rules. So unless you're trying to get me banned, you'll just have to pick up a book on how consoles work and try to find the part that says they can't be hacked. -
Like I said, free unhooks. Risk-free, consequence-free, thinking-free. Thanks for confirming.
-
How does that negate what I said? You're asking for free unhooks, period.
-
@Kaldrax said:
@Orion said:
Nobody said "point reward", that's just your Survivor main nature talking. Killers, for the most part, don't care about points. They're not playing point farmer; they're playing Killer. Try again.
That's literally what I just said. They don't care about points and that's why it wouldn't work. The reward has to be killing and winning. That's why camping needs to be punished, so that it's a bad way of winning.
There are ways you can reward something besides points. Try thinking outside the box for a moment, maybe read a book on game development, paying particular attention to the chapters dedicated to reward systems.
Camping is already a bad way of winning... if the Survivors are smart. The Killer is doing nothing for 2 minutes, which should be more than enough to repair every remaining generator and leave. -
It is, but clearly you're not familiar with how balancing works.
-
@Kaldrax said:
@Orion said:
Everything's stupid about trying to unhook when the Killer is right there and can stop you or otherwise negate the effect that unhooking will have (i.e.: down the person you unhooked and put them right back on the hook).
Yes. That's why I'm proposing a rule change. Going for unhooks should be a smart thing to do, not a stupid thing.
Going for unhooks can be smart, depending on the situation. If the Killer is right there and can negate its effect, then it's stupid. If the Killer is not there and probably won't be able to negate the effects, then it's smart.
What you're actually proposing is free (risk-free, consequence-free, thinking-free) unhooks all the time. If you were honest, that's what you'd say you're proposing. -
@Kaldrax said:
@Mister_xD said:
ooooor (crazy idea incoming) we could actually reward a killer for not camping, instead of punishing him for doing so.i know its crazy.
but it might actually work.I've thought about that, but I don't think it would work. Camping is too strong of a tactic. No point reward is going to incentivize people to stop doing what helps them win.
Nobody said "point reward", that's just your Survivor main nature talking. Killers, for the most part, don't care about points. They're not playing point farmer; they're playing Killer. Try again.
@Kaldrax said:
@Orion said:
Because it's forcing the Killers to reward a stupid play by the Survivors. It's absurd that I even have to explain this, but making it so your opponent cannot capitalize on your mistakes makes a game unfair and unbalanced.
Like I said on your other post, it's only stupid because of the way the rules are set up. Change the rules, and you change what's smart and what's not. It's absurd that I even have to explain this.
For it to not be stupid, you'd have to make the Killer so absurdly overpowered (to compensate for the fact that he's being forced to have all his progress undone) that nobody would play Survivor.
-
Everything's stupid about trying to unhook when the Killer is right there and can stop you or otherwise negate the effect that unhooking will have (i.e.: down the person you unhooked and put them right back on the hook).
-
@Kaldrax said:
@Orion said:
Faking unhook attempts to see if the Killer hit them, presenting themselves as bait (which is so obvious that nobody fell for it), squatting around the hook in groups, and so on. Y'know, exactly what they do now.
How does that abuse the proposed rule change, though? The killer can (and I'd argue they should) go on a chase instead of trying to camp the person they already hooked. Why not let the survivors get the unhook so the hooked person can go back to playing the game?
Because it's forcing the Killers to reward a stupid play by the Survivors. It's absurd that I even have to explain this, but making it so your opponent cannot capitalize on your mistakes makes a game unfair and unbalanced.
-
@Kaldrax said:
I was responding to your statement that it's up to the players to play smart. It's pretty obvious camping is an intentional design. I'm making the argument that it shouldn't be.I'm making the argument that it should remain as is. Having it any other way is rewarding Survivors for making stupid plays, which is absurd from any unbiased perspectives.
-
Faking unhook attempts to see if the Killer hit them, presenting themselves as bait (which is so obvious that nobody fell for it), squatting around the hook in groups, and so on. Y'know, exactly what they do now.