Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
@DwightsLifeMatters said:
I never lost an item if the killer DCs during the loading screen, but that happens not very often so I could be just luckyThere's a bug/exploit that will take away your items, and some ######### are (ab)using it.
-
Yes, it absolutely is necessary, and nothing can be reasonably done in a way that doesn't ######### over Killers everywhere. You can wait to see the perks, it won't kill you.
-
@Dehitay said:
@Freudentrauma said:
I wouldn't put too much thought into the Mali hint. Devs are using country names to reference chapter internally. England->Freddy, Finland->SAW, Guam->Clown, Haiti->Spirit, Kenya->Legion. I think Mali will just be the internal name for chapter 11.Spirit wasn't Japan? I don't trust their system.
She really wasn't. The codenames don't seem to have any correlation to the Killers.
-
@Master said:
@ThatOneGuy said:
why do u camp and then laugh at ppl when they get toxic towards you. That in itself is being more toxic than the ones messaging you because u instigated all of it. Something needs to be done about camping it’s a no skill cheap tactic for killers who don’t know how to actually win chases or kill anyoneIf the killer dont know how to actually win chases, how did you get camped in the first place?
Just curious
Obviously, due to a heretofore unseen bug, OP spawned on the hook.
-
@Peasant said:
What is with these survivors nowadays? I had a match earlier where someone was upset that I defended a basement with hooked survivors inside to secure kills."You didn't even give them a chance to escape, therefore you are a bad killer."
No folks, a bad killer is one that doesn't kill anyone.
Too many safety nets. If the devs removed or gutted some of them (Self-Care, Decisive Strike, Adrenaline, third person, looping, map advantages, offering advantages, SWF, three hooks per kill, etc.), Survivors would actually be forced to play better, and thus would be less likely to feel entitled.
-
@ThatOneGuy said:
Nah sorry that’s just an a hole thing to do. At least 1 person could attempt to save them. It’s completely unfair to basically get no points for the round because u weren’t allowed to do anythingYou failed at every aspect of the chase in order to get on the hook. It's completely fair to lose when you fail. If you didn't lose when you failed, then failure would be indistinguishable from success.
-
This is definitely a bug. You should report it.
-
@Mister_xD said:
i personally dont care about the shrine.
i just unlock a killers teachables as soon as i can, so i wont have to buy them with shards and instead can go and buy some neat cosmetics with them
so, yeah... if you want BBQ, just level your Bubba.
if you dont have him... sucks to be you i guess xDbut yeah, i might be up for an idea that makes the shrine of secrets prefer perks you havent unlocked yet, so you have a higher chance at getting what you want. there would also be a reason then to buy the ones you dont like, as this would increase your chance to get a perk you want next time.
The Shrine is the same for every player. That wouldn't work.
-
@DwightsLifeMatters said:
You don't know if it's random or not. BHVR has the ultimate knowledge behind the shrine system. We are just assuming things and it's more than suspicious that especially the perk BBQ, the number 1 selling point for buying Leatherface doesn't appear.Many other perks have also never appeared. You're reading into this one and ignoring all the rest because of confirmation bias.
Coincidences can and do happen, from time to time.@DwightsLifeMatters said:
If the shrine wouldn't exist we had a clear and obvious pay2win game. And hopefully you are aware that pay2win mechanics in games are for me and many others reason number 1 not to buy the game in the first place. With the shrine we have a less obvious pay2win mechanic aka "just wait till it appears" but in reality you can wait till you die so you give up and buy the DLC to get access to the perks you need.
Smart move from bhvr business perspective, but absolutely disgusting from a customers perspective.Like all conspiracy theories, this hinges on the presumption that the devs are simultaneously clever enough to create the Shrine without any bugs involving probability, despite the fact that we've seen them screw up rarities in Bloodwebs, but also incompetent enough to disregard the fact that a compiled list of data could show they're trying to shaft us.
You're right. It's much less likely that this is just the end result of a truly random system. Do you and OP also believe that the lottery is rigged in such a way that you two never win the grand prize? -
@mimzy630 said:
@DwightsLifeMatters said:
I have absolutely the feeling aswell that the shrine is rigged, thanks for the statistics to make it even clear.To everyone who says "but it's RNG, you don't know what RNG is" at least have the balls then and admit that the shrine is busted and needs rework so locking meta perks like BBQ behind a paywall for over 1 year doesn't happen.
Err, I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd rather random "fair" than a fixed "fair" (i.e., force BBQ on Shrine yearly isn't random).
No, you wouldn't.
Random is what we have now, but because you don't understand probability (standard deviation, confidence interval, the difference between a set average and an expected value, the law of large numbers - just to name a few), you've falsely concluded it's rigged.
Were it pseudo-random, to compensate for the inherent, well, randomness of RNG, it'd artificially increase the probability of perks that have appeared less on the Shrine, in order to seem more fair, thus giving you the result that feels more natural and intuitive - the result that you want. -
The time is more or less inversely proportional to how much the Survivors in your game suffer from its effects. If they can't hit Great Skill Checks consistently, it's usually gone before you can do anything about it. If they can hit Great Skill Checks consistently, it might very well stay during the entire trial.
-
Report them.
-
@Milord said:
Just want to say that's how politics work. :P Giving people what they want without fundamentally changing anything. I assume we used to complain about having to buy a killer to get their perk will lead to p2w (or something like that)? So they give us a 'solution' that can keep their profit level high.Not that I want to push this 'conspiracy theory' or anything. I just think that this isn't that big of a stretch for a conspiracy theory.
Before there was the Shrine of Secrets, there were Splinters. It'd still be far easier to increase their occurrence than to:
- Create a new currency earned by playing the game
- Create the rules surrounding how you earn said currency
- Create a store where you can spend said currency
- Create the interface for the store
- Create a system that randomizes what's in that store
That's just off the top of my head. No matter how you frame it, creating the Shrine of Secrets would've been detrimental to this imagined scheme.
-
No.
-
This would just incentivize DCing on a map you don't want to play. You wouldn't be able to play the game.
-
@mimzy630 said:
This is a repost. The original was taken down twice, I imagine to censor it. I can't condone it. I have no ill will against BHVR as a company, and I even say that.By the way, here are the originals that were "taken down twice":
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/43442/is-shrine-of-secrets-rigged-a-statistical-analysis
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/43444/is-shrine-of-secrets-rigged-a-statistical-analysis -
@mimzy630 said:
@Orion said:
Your analysis doesn't take into account the fact that new perks are entered into the pool on a fairly regular basis, and that the perks from the base game, having been there the longest, will show a higher frequency.Huh? Did you read it? I go Period by Period, analyzing each one with the number of teachable perks in it and the chance for that specific amount of time to have teachable perks. I know perks that have been there longer will have a higher frequency. Duh. Please, go over the numbers again. I made very sure to keep all the percentages correct, and to account to change over time.
Regarding BBQ, Bubba is a pretty old killer. I can't compare his perks to other per-se, but I can at least show the anomaly that is BBQ. Thank you for commenting, but please, do read my numbers.
No, I must admit I did not read it. You said it was "data" in your OP, so I figured it was just a compilation of frequencies and percentages, like what the wiki has. Still, my apologies. I'll give it a read when I find the time.
I will say, however, that this is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. If the devs wanted to force the players' hands by making DLC perks inaccessible, they could've just not made the Shrine of Secrets in the first place. It'd be both cheaper and easier than creating it and then rigging it, not to mention completely foolproof - can't ######### up the rigging if there's nothing to rig. The creation of the Shrine adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to this imagined scheme that is wholly unnecessary. Occam's Razor guts this conspiracy theory every time.
-
Because two events can occur simultaneously.
-
She's not. You're just worse at the game than the person playing her.
-
Your analysis doesn't take into account the fact that new perks are entered into the pool on a fairly regular basis, and that the perks from the base game, having been there the longest, will show a higher frequency.
-
@Mister_Holdout said:
From a killer main's perspective, Legion is dreadfully boring. No skill cap whatsoever.You mean low skill cap. No skill cap would mean one could theoretically become infinitely good with them.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@Master said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@Master said:
Just for the last stupid kid, I will post you the link:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/19450/game-rules-and-report-systemIn case you lack some braincells and cant find the line, I will even copy it for you:
Disconnects (leaving the match before killed or sacrificed) - DO NOT REPORT
Right there in game. Not a false report.
Well the ingame information is wrong, I know its ridiculous but thats what we have been told.
Being AFK isnt bannable either for exampleI cant show you more than the most recent threadabout this,,,,
LOL "in game info is wrong" maybe your info is wrong. It's literally right there in front of you in the damn game. Admit you are wrong or kindly keep your mouth shut.
In-game info is wrong (or rather, outdated). We have written and verbal statements from both mods and devs not to report for DCing because they have an automated system in place.
-
@Slyther83 said:
Camping is only "intended" until they figure out how to creatively address it. Until then, sure, it's "intended".Regrettably, it seems that hook vultures can't be taught.
-
@fcc2014 said:
Reminds me of that bug when if you got hooked in the basement you kept lagging back to it even if you were clear across the map.That was a Monstrous Shrine shadow buff.
-
Was that bug actually reported? And no, opening a thread in General Discussions is not a bug report.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionYour post is too long for me to read it in full, so I'll just address this bit.
It's an established fact that SWF breaks the game by providing information that Survivors are not meant to have. To say that my comment should include an argument for that is to say that I should include an argument as to why water is H2O. Some things have already been established a priori. They do not need arguments or proofs every single time you address the subject.As pre-established as that God created the universe? That Zeus is the god of the sky and thunder? I'll skip out on that thought fallacy if you will.
SWF only break the game insofar; Blindness is irrelevant. Dynamic planning (planning in general is available to anyone). Communicating perks after dying (has been eliminated)
Almost all of what actually contributes to the stomps against killers is actually not game-breaking. It's just high level cooperation, achievable through a functional ranking system for solo's as well.Dude, you literally agreed that SWF breaks the balance of the game due to its instantaneous, map-wide communication. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionTo ask you a simple question, since you discard that frequency is a factor here:
Is a gamebreaking bug also gamebreaking if it rarely happens?
To answer in the way that you would, I'm dismissing the OP's concerns due to the low frequency of his completely made-up scenario because it's the same argument used to dismiss any and all concerns about SWF.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orionbecause however the game is broken by SWF or a hypothetical KWF has no bearing on the fact that they both break the game if used in certain ways. It also has no bearing on the fact that SWF is used to break the game a lot, often to the detriment of Killers and solo Survivors.
Stating that something IS, doesn't make it true. Maybe your comment should be longer so that it actually included an argument as to why it actually is?
Your post is too long for me to read it in full, so I'll just address this bit.
It's an established fact that SWF breaks the game by providing information that Survivors are not meant to have. To say that my comment should include an argument for that is to say that I should include an argument as to why water is H2O. Some things have already been established a priori. They do not need arguments or proofs every single time you address the subject. -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionIndeed, it doesn't. Instead, it achieves a much more essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate: it answers the question that was asked.
I can't find the questionmark.
The OP reminded us that there are ways the killers can highly abuse the fact that there are 2 killers and mentions a very specific example.
You said that this wouldn't matter because; look at SWF's. (delegitimising his concern)
Then I rebutted and legitimised his concern, preventing it from being ignored.Isn't that the more essential goal?
No, it's really not, because however the game is broken by SWF or could be broken a hypothetical KWF has no bearing on the fact that they both do/could break the game if used in certain ways. It also has no bearing on the fact that SWF is used to break the game a lot, often to the detriment of Killers and solo Survivors.
Furthermore, note how I said "essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate". I was speaking in general terms. You were asked a simple yes/no question, which should be followed by a simple yes/no answer; not an essay on why everything everyone knows about SWF is wrong.
EDIT: Oh, and the question mark was on the original question, but because you can't just say "Yes" or "No" when presented with a yes/no question, we had to go down this alley instead. -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThe thing is that answering your question doesn't prove a point.
Indeed, it doesn't. Instead, it achieves a much more essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate: it answers the question that was asked.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThen the answer is yes. SWF's create very unintended effects, as evidence by perk designs like Hex: The Third Seal.
And this is undeniably problematic.The bonus of this however; It doesn't happen frequently that a team of 4 skilled survivors do go through the effort of utilising high level strategies that would otherwise make the game problematic since they can win normally;
the principle of low effort reigns supreme.Things that get rendered useless, like Hex The Third Seal are also not parts of the core gameplay.
Now with 2 killers the 2 points made above are both false:
It doesn't take high level strategies to just chase the same survivor with 2 killers and second;
This mechanic unlike SWF doesn't break perks like The Third Seal; it breaks the entire chasing mechanic.
That is the point.
Remember what I told you a while back, about making your posts shorter and more to the point? "Yes" was all you had to say. Everything else is likely (I say "likely" because I haven't the patience to read it) a repetition of what you already said before, when I had to clarify the question to see if you wouldn't go off on a tangent.
It was a yes/no question. All you had to say was either "yes" or "no". -
@ToxicFengM1n said:
what was wrong with legacy nurse?Minor irrelevant bug (didn't affect gameplay), which is why it was low-priority and took so long to fix.
-
@Brady said:
@Orion said:
@Brady said:
Why are you concerned?They added a 10% debuff when working on a generator with someone else
All Prove Thyself does is get rid of that debuff. That means the old gen time of 27s~ can return if you run this perk.
Once again, a nerf is compensated by just having to run a perk. It's irritating.
Diminishing returns (what you call the "10% debuff") were always there; they just weren't working properly. They fixed a bug and buffed a perk.
They separated an already good perk in 2 perks; it is irritating.
The complaint isn't the 10% debuff, it's how they accumulate it. They basically go "we've done this, but here's a perk if you still want it the old way"
I rather have a more unique stance to Prove Thyself than this half-assed change but that's personal.
No, they literally go "We fixed a bug and buffed a perk". You, on the other hand, go "They fixed a bug that was hindering me, but I'm complaining anyway. Also, I don't like the buff to this perk that nobody ever uses, so I'm complaining about that as well".
-
@Brady said:
Why are you concerned?They added a 10% debuff when working on a generator with someone else
All Prove Thyself does is get rid of that debuff. That means the old gen time of 27s~ can return if you run this perk.
Once again, a nerf is compensated by just having to run a perk. It's irritating.
Diminishing returns (what you call the "10% debuff") were always there; they just weren't working properly. They fixed a bug and buffed a perk.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
SWF has instantaneous, map-wide communication, which is almost as good as literal wallhacks. Are you telling me that doesn't break the game?What I'm saying is that more between the power balance between solo's and SWF's can be negated through a real ranking based trust system than you think.
Marth88 already showed us that the power wasn't in the comms.
A lot of the power of SWF has been falsely attributed to the SWF's. Most of that power actually comes from being matched with players of exactly the same skill level;
Currently; let's say that killers have 100% power and 4 survivors need 25% power, meaning that they are all equally skilled.
In DBD's ranking system, there is no rank domain. Everyone that grinds well enough gets to rank 1, meaning it's a pool from bad to highly skilled. So here is what happens:
If you are a really good killer, let's say you get 100%. Now imagine you are a really good survivor against that really good killer, you get 27%.
Because there are more bad survivors and highly skilled survivors in rank 1, your other random teammates are going to be say: 20%, 15%, 17%, resulting in a loss.
SWF's not by the virtue of voice coms, but by the virtue of being in charge of custom matchmaking gain a lot of power through this.
Most of the power of SWF's would be solvable through a functioning ranking system. So there really isn't a gap.
Now here is the difference; a double killer can literally break the chasing concept of the game as the premise of a chasing mechanic is that you have somewhere else to run and thus almost all places at least give you 2 directions. (1 occupied by the killer.)
The power that double killers offers is literally gamebreaking, where as SWF's gameplay is mostly just the result of a functional matchmaking system and not voice coms.
There is no real comparison here.
I didn't word my question correctly. Here it is again:
Does instantaneous, map-wide communication, which provides map knowledge and the ability to coordinate every move almost perfectly, break the balance of the game? A simple yes or no will suffice. -
I did, but some people are too biased to see that their complaints about a hypothetical KWF mode apply to SWF as well. Difference is, we actually do have SWF in the game.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
Nah, this doesn't need addressing. If SWF concerns can be hand-waved away, so can this.This is only a fair comparison in rhetoric though. SWF's mainly increase the team's efficiency.
2 Killers on the other-hand break the otherwise chasing dynamics.SWF has instantaneous, map-wide communication, which is almost as good as literal wallhacks. Are you telling me that doesn't break the game?
-
@KillerRaccoon said:
This’ll be very difficult to do. Obviously people are going to play whichever side is more fun/easier. Unfortunately, both sides need to be equally powerful and fun so we can have both types of players, otherwise we’ll only have one side and the game will die.If we go with your suggestion, not even 20% of the player base will play Killer. No one will play Killer. People want to have fun, and we need both sides to have players.
The fun comes from the different types of gameplay. Survivor means being hunted, but you have other people on your side (in theory...). Killer means being the hunter, but you're alone. If the game is balanced, there won't be a problem.
-
This will never be possible.
-
@Peasant said:
I am not not disagreeing with you. I am just trying play "devil's advocate" I guess.To paraphrase Walter Bishop:
The problem with playing Devil's Advocate is that your client is the Devil.Concerns surrounding SWF were ignored when it was first implemented and continue to be ignored because "not all SWF are deathsquads". I see no reason why this should be any different.
-
This just sounds like a mixture of Wraith, Shape, and Pig. While I enjoy the idea, making a Killer slower than the Survivors is a big no-no, with the exception of the Nurse for obvious reasons. This power would not be rewarding to use in any way.
-
No, there is not.
-
@Peasant said:
I understand that only a handful of players will play with master strategies to get (6-8?) kills. However in a previous discussion on the two player gamemode @Peanits brought up the point that two killers ganging up can prove very strong. So I just hoped to alleviate their concerns with thoughtful discussion.Nah, this doesn't need addressing. If SWF concerns can be hand-waved away, so can this.
-
Yeah, but this would just be a small percentage of players, so it's OK.
-
I like it.
-
Camping is only a viable strategy if Survivors make it so. Unfortunately for the game, many of them are willing to make it viable.
-
@Rebel_Raven said:
@ThatDidact said:
How exactly is running Sloppy Butcher on the Wraith an "exploit"?There is a bug where it will cause the survivor to bleed like a water fountain nonstop. Sometimes the killer sees it, sometimes they don't, I guess.
It also supposedly hits survivors right in the framerate. It's fairly recent.Killers don't see it, but players who use sub-par hardware (consoles and potato PCs) do experience framerate drops.
-
SWF needs a rework because of those perks (among others).
-
"Take away what makes basement hooks unique so that they become useless."
The answer is, obviously, no.
-
- If I want wins handed out to me while supposedly playing the underdog role, I'll go play a sandbox game.