Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
So you want the Legion to have built-in Whispers?
-
The Trapper is the original Killer, the very first one the developers made. If you mean in-universe, then the Nurse was taken from the earliest known time period.
IMO, the Entity Herself was the first Killer. Long before She had the power to take Survivors and Killers and force them to do Her bidding, She simply drained Survivors until they were no longer useful.
-
@Entità said:
I was answering to weirdkid5 about their HUD idea. I believe the HUD should be complete for both parties, with some, fair differences: for example, it's not relevant for the killer to know that a survivor has a Broken status, because it's not the killer's business to heal them; it's not relevant for the survivors to know when Bloodlust triggers: they should try to evade the chase without this information. Perks and mechanics balances are not related to this thread.
You were answering on the basis that any Killer buff must be accompanied by a Survivor buff, which only makes sense if you believe the game is perfectly balanced. You can't have it both ways. Either establish that the game is perfectly balanced, or concede that buffs to Killers do not have to be accompanied by buffs to Survivors.
-
@Entità said:
It's a huge question and that's not the right thread to discuss it. I think you believe the killers are too weak, then open a new discussion with your analysis and suggestions.You're the one who brought it up by implying that any buff to Killers must be accompanied by a buff to Survivors. If you want to drop the subject, then you must also acquiesce that buffs to Killers do not have to be accompanied by buffs to Survivors.
-
The Nurse rewards players for their skill, on both sides. Some people just aren't as good at the game as they think. The ease with which you pip can give them the false illusion that they're good, when all they do is loop.
-
@Entità said:
@weirdkid5 said:
@weirdkid5 said:
The game shouldn't give the Survivors all the information that it does. The game used to be a little more challenging for it when you weren't sure what Hex was up, or if there was even a Hex at all until you find one.The proficiency indicators I'm fine with, but anything that tells the Survivors what debuffs they have on the right hand side should be removed, as well as the indication that the Killer is chasing the Obsession.
What kind of HUD do you suggest, for both parties?
The Killer should be able to see which Survivors are injured and what debuffs he currently has in play and on which Survivors they are affecting, which perks he has set on himself, in addition to the noise indicators that are normally present, where the gens are, and who the Obsession is. Your add-ons should also be present to remind you what your build is.
Survivors shouldn't be able to tell who is injured until they see them. Seeing allies through walls when they go down is fine, and any buffs the Survivor receives from other Survivors should be indicated so that you can take full advantage of the buff. But anything that warns the Survivor of an "Exposed" or "Hindered" status should be removed. Obviously seeing your own perks and item is also fine. Survivors should NOT be able to tell who the Obsession is until he has gone down at least once, unless you are the Obsession, in which case you can see that always.
This change would drastically benefit the killer: what would you offer in exchange for the survivors, to balance it?
That rationale only works if we assume the game to be perfectly balanced. Are you suggesting the game is perfectly balanced?
-
@Entità said:
No, I suggest exactly the opposite: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/42043/players-names-should-be-hidden-until-the-trial-ends Too many dodgers and toxic people: the anonymity is what we need to restore a good gaming atmosphere.Anonymity is what drives people to be #########. Just look at the Internet.
-
@Vietfox said:
Don't be silly, your skeleton would be dust before that happened.
-
@KissyKissy said:
Yes, you're right in the sense if it is a fact if it is a fact -- however, I have not heard this personally from Dev's as a source. Source? It seems natural to arrive at your conclusion, but because it is not definitive, I dont "accept" it because someone on the internet simply said it. Neither do I accept the principle behind the choice -- if it is indeed derived as such.The devs have stated this in one of their streams. I'm not going to search through them, however, because I just don't have the patience, and quite frankly, you're not worth the effort.
Now, you can either take the word of everyone who commented here, or you can assume it's all a massive conspiracy and keep rejecting reality. -
@KissyKissy said:
@Orion said:
@KissyKissy said:
@EntityDispleased said:
"Why isn't there an option to turn off in game music"Gets the same answer several times by different people
"No you're all wrong I think the music is unnecessary and we should be able to turn it off"
Why did you make this thread if you're so sure of your opinion?
As to defend my opinion, same as you defend yours ...
I will accept a well-enough reason for the lack of this option. I just havent heard any.
No, you won't. The reason has already been stated multiple times. You just refuse to accept it because it doesn't match your opinion.
Opinions cannot be objectively right or wrong by definition. I am not completely right so much as you are not completely right. I am just saying I havent received any reason as to change my opinion that aesthetic qualities should not take precedence to the functional quality of tracking survivors. You disagree. Got it. I think we can end this stupid conversation in, "We agree to disagree."
I am right because I'm not stating an opinion. I'm answering the question you asked. In case you've forgotten, the question is "Why can't I turn off music?". And I answered that you can't turn off music because it's part of the game's balance. It's how the game was designed. This is a fact.
Likewise, you can't customize graphical settings because they, too, are part of the game's balance, to keep people with more powerful hardware from having a greater advantage based solely on the size of their wallets. This, too, is a fact.Now, you can either accept or reject these facts, but rejecting reality doesn't change objective facts.
-
@KissyKissy said:
@EntityDispleased said:
"Why isn't there an option to turn off in game music"Gets the same answer several times by different people
"No you're all wrong I think the music is unnecessary and we should be able to turn it off"
Why did you make this thread if you're so sure of your opinion?
As to defend my opinion, same as you defend yours ...
I will accept a well-enough reason for the lack of this option. I just havent heard any.
No, you won't. The reason has already been stated multiple times. You just refuse to accept it because it doesn't match your opinion.
-
@EntityDispleased said:
"Why isn't there an option to turn off in game music"Gets the same answer several times by different people
"No you're all wrong I think the music is unnecessary and we should be able to turn it off"
Why did you make this thread if you're so sure of your opinion?
Another thing that baffles me - why people ask questions when they don't really care about the answers.
-
@KissyKissy said:
Another aspect of low volume is the breathing and footsteps. That's what im getting at. That stridor perk is lackluster and either increase breathing volume or removing music helps it.Since the engine update, there have been reports of audio bugs. It wouldn't surprise me if this were one of them. However, you will never be able to customize sound to that degree, because, as has been mentioned, it's part of the game's balance.
-
@KissyKissy said:
@Orion said:
@KissyKissy said:
@Orion said:
@KissyKissy said:
@EntityDispleased said:
It's a part of the game. The same reason why they won't let us edit specific graphic settings so you won't be able to turn off shadows or tweak the shading so you can see better.Waddyou talking about? Nearly every game ever now has the ability to turn music off. So if they suddenly stopped doing this, you're gonna defend that on the basis of this reasoning?
"Nearly every game" isn't an asymmetrical PvP horror game where audiovisual cues are very important.
Which would make it even more important for those who wish to hear the cues better. Thanks for agreeing with me, bud.
The chase music is part of that balance. If you allowed people to customize their settings however they wanted, they could get an advantage based purely on hardware, as opposed to skill. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.
Look at my first line of my post. The very first line.
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase"
"When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase""When not in chase"When not in a chase, the music is very low, or at least it's supposed to be. Maybe it's a bug.
-
@Master said:
@KissyKissy said:
When not in chase, why is there not an option to turn the music off so we can actually take advantage of audio cues better?Because the chase music is supposed to deafen you. Yes I dont get it either
Yeah, it's one of those things that baffles me. IMO, the only source of frustration in a PvP game should be the fact that you lose, and not the game mechanics themselves. However, some design elements were made with the express purpose of being annoying, like the chase music.
-
@KissyKissy said:
@Orion said:
@KissyKissy said:
@EntityDispleased said:
It's a part of the game. The same reason why they won't let us edit specific graphic settings so you won't be able to turn off shadows or tweak the shading so you can see better.Waddyou talking about? Nearly every game ever now has the ability to turn music off. So if they suddenly stopped doing this, you're gonna defend that on the basis of this reasoning?
"Nearly every game" isn't an asymmetrical PvP horror game where audiovisual cues are very important.
Which would make it even more important for those who wish to hear the cues better. Thanks for agreeing with me, bud.
The chase music is part of that balance. If you allowed people to customize their settings however they wanted, they could get an advantage based purely on hardware, as opposed to skill. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.
-
@KissyKissy said:
@EntityDispleased said:
It's a part of the game. The same reason why they won't let us edit specific graphic settings so you won't be able to turn off shadows or tweak the shading so you can see better.Waddyou talking about? Nearly every game ever now has the ability to turn music off. So if they suddenly stopped doing this, you're gonna defend that on the basis of this reasoning?
"Nearly every game" isn't an asymmetrical PvP horror game where audiovisual cues are very important.
-
@micsan said:
@Orion said:
I'm just gonna address this lie. NOED actually has a perfect counter called "breaking the totems". DS can only be mitigated, but it does not have a perfect counter.
There is absolutely nothing the Killer can do to prevent the activation of DS; it's all on the Survivor hitting a very easy skill check. On the other hand, the Survivors can break totems, which actually does prevent the activation of NOED.
So no, they don't both have "perfect counters". One of them has a perfect counter, the other has ways to mitigate - but never completely nullify - its effect.I do not agree. Maybe we disagree on what perfect counter is, but we both agree that they are counters.
I still think it's comparable as a survivor has to spend 14x5 seconds to remove said totems. As in you need to spend time for the counter to work. I don't think it's that far off to compare it to DS.
NOED isn't as perfectly countered as you make it out to be.
it still takes 70 seconds to remove all totems, plus you have to look for them. Time split between all 4 I guess, 17.5 seconds on average per survivor to do this task.But, putting on small game makes that task easy, aka a counter.
Same with DS.
Put on enduring and you still have to chase them again, but they won't get very far. I don't think you would spend as much time chasing a DS then you would do removing all 5 totems. If you play with this in mind and make sure to use that split second to move to a place where the survivor can't get into a good loop right away after the DS hits. Or, you could juggle or slug.It's the fact that the people who keep complaining about these things and that they should be nerfed that bothers me. I do not believe they are OP, and I do not believe they should be removed from the game.
Perfect counter means "perfect counter". Means "complete prevention of negative effects", instead of "partial mitigation of negative effects".
It does not take 70 seconds to remove all totems. It can take up to 70 seconds (14x5) to remove all totems, if a single Survivor is working on totems, but it can also take just 28 seconds to do it if they all work on totems. Just like it can take up to 400 seconds to repair generators (5x80) if a single Survivor is repairing them, but it can also take just 160 seconds to repair them if they all work on generators - and that's not including progression bonuses from skill checks, perks, and toolboxes.Juggling only works if there's a hook nearby, and even then it's still not a perfect counter - body blocking will screw you over.
Slugging only works if you slug all of them. It takes very little time to pick up a dying Survivor. There's also no pressure on the Survivors to go do it ASAP, since they take a long time to bleed out and can recover by themselves.
-
@micsan said:
@PiiFree said:
@micsan said:
You are missing the point here...For you it's totally unacceptable to play against a toxic SWF, and that's the problem. A Toxic SWF is in fact nothing other then a group of survivors who communicate and are in fact, GOOD AT THE [BAD WORD] GAME.I think you confuse "being good at the game" with "being toxic in the game".
You can be a good player without being toxic and you can be toxic while sucking at the game.
...but that explains why so many players have trouble understanding why no one wants to face toxic SWFs.
That is exactly my point.
Thing is, in this game more than any I've ever played, the difference between what's skilled and what's considered toxic by the community is so vastly different.
Many killers will tell you that running DS is toxic, when they run NOED themselves, which is considered toxic by most survivors.
Both of these things have perfect counters, DS has enduring, NOED has small game. If you have problems with NOED, run small game and see how much NOED will bother you. If DS is bothering you, run enduring to reduce that 4 second stun to 1 second(slightly more because of the animation).
I'm just gonna address this lie. NOED actually has a perfect counter called "breaking the totems". DS can only be mitigated, but it does not have a perfect counter.
There is absolutely nothing the Killer can do to prevent the activation of DS; it's all on the Survivor hitting a very easy skill check. On the other hand, the Survivors can break totems, which actually does prevent the activation of NOED.
So no, they don't both have "perfect counters". One of them has a perfect counter, the other has ways to mitigate - but never completely nullify - its effect. -
@fluffybunny said:
What @Orion said sounds likely, though they could also get bored.
Does anyone think that's possible?It is, and they do. When they stop having strong emotional responses, they get cast out into the Void.
-
The Entity feeds on strong emotions. The trials are meant to elicit strong emotional responses; particularly hopefulness.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionIf I get you correctly here, your comment is not about the linking, but against it being too long?
Here's what I think is too long: Having to invest too much time on reading something I don't know the exact subject of. Which is why walls of white text are so uninteresting.
For this reason my "long" post is split up in chapters and sections (and even subject), of which all could've been a separate post.
But I prefer separate posts relating 1 subject being coherently put together better rather than having things scattered around in separate post on the same subject, all needing a smaller (often similar) introduction and as a result rereading things.
(Since such a collection of subjects cover a bigger topic more widely, they almost always add to a smaller post as a link, as such smaller posts as a result often try to be less coherent paragraphs of such a mega-post.)If someone isn't interested in understanding the full picture of systemic and underlying problems regarding the game and prefer recent drama, then I guess my posts are just not for them generally.
The main issue is their length, yes, but the fact that you keep linking to them tells me you're not getting the message - nobody's reading them (at least not completely) because when you need to refer to "chapter X, section Y, paragraph Z" of a forum post to talk about it, nobody's going to put in the effort to even read it. It could also be argued that constantly posting links to your own threads is a form of spam.
The problem is that even those for whom the posts are intended can't be bothered to read that much text. I, for one, want to understand your PoV on what the underlying problems are, and even I just zone out after a while.
If your goal is just to type out your thoughts, then keep doing what you're doing. However, if your goal is to have people engage in a meaningful discussion on those subjects, then your posts need to be shorter and to the point. In other words, your posts need to be tailored to the audience, as opposed to the audience being tailored to your posts. The former is how you get meaningful debate. The latter is how you create echo chambers.
-
@Vietfox said:
14 out of 10 gamers confirm that.I give this strategy a solid 5/7.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Do you mean my comment above or the linked post?My comment above only link 1 subject of the whole post and doesn't need the whole post and isn't even mandatory for understanding my comment. It's just available if he/she wants to know HOW we can actually use rank to solve SWF balance-wise, rather then just stating we could.
I mean your comments in general. Your OPs sometimes go on longer than some walkthroughs, and you keep quoting/linking to them again and again at every chance you get, but the fact is, very few people - if any - are reading such long texts.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
(Chapter2, Section 2: An introduction to ELO, of:)Tip: If your comment needs multiple chapters and sections like it's a legal document or a book, it's way too long. Shortening them might get people to actually read them.
-
No. I already don't prestige because I value my builds more than I do cosmetics. You've no right to forcefully take away people's hard-earned items, perks, etc..
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionIn theory, more pip slots will make it so skill levels are more spread out, and thus neither side can be carried. Then, a simple adjustment to how pips are gained can fix pips being "handed for free".
Pip slots?
If I understood @laKUKA correctly, they're either referring to requiring more pips per rank or more ranks overall. Either way, the same principle applies.
-
@Master said:
@Orion said:
In theory, more pip slots will make it so skill levels are more spread out, and thus neither side can be carried. Then, a simple adjustment to how pips are gained can fix pips being "handed for free".
As long as playing is the only thing you need to do, that doesnt change anything.
The only thing that will change is that you just need to spend more time grinding to rank 1, but that has nothign to do with skill.We probably need both adjustments yeah
Like I said, after separating skill levels, adjustments can be made to how pips are gained.
-
In theory, more pip slots will make it so skill levels are more spread out, and thus neither side can be carried. Then, a simple adjustment to how pips are gained can fix pips being "handed for free".
-
Toxic SWF whose only purpose seems to be to make everyone else's game as ######### as possible.
-
@CornChip said:
All it shows is how dominated these threads are by killer mains.Or people just agree more with one guy, for multiple reasons.
-
Letting yourself die leads to a 0% chance of both of you surviving. Not letting yourself die leads to a >0% chance of both of you surviving. "Almost nothing" is higher than "nothing".
-
New alt, rapido?
-
@Master said:
@DexyIV said:
Never did understand the queue time excuse. As both survivor and killer, I never exceed 10 minutes of queue time in red ranks. And that time where I did hit 10 minutes was due to people joining and then leaving over and over. Not to mention this was at like 2 am because my sleeping habits are all over the place.The ban system is good because otherwise people would insta DC in order to derank all the time. imo someone who contributes nothing to the game but getting downed 1 time only to kill themselves on the hook is better than someone who DCs, because at least they wasted some of the killer's time for the rest of their team. Insta DCing as killer is annoying for the survivors too. If you insta DC to derank constantly, no matter what you prefer to play, I think that's a perfectly good reason to ban you. It ruins the experience of others.
When the queue time becomes larger than the actual playtime, then thats not acceptable at all in my opinion
Triple gen time, problem solved.
(Yes, I'm joking) -
@Vietfox said:
I'm guessing you are from Österreich thenI don't even know what that is.
-
@Vietfox said:
You mean the "mEin land"?Nah. I know very well that very few events of any kind would come to my country.
-
@Thatbrownmonster said:
@Orion said:
If they do come to Europe, they should do so in the "main land", so to speak, IMO.what do you mean by that?
I mean the continuous piece of land where 90% of Europe's population lives, as opposed to an island. It's more convenient for the majority of Europeans if it's done in that manner.
-
If they do come to Europe, they should do so in the "main land", so to speak, IMO.
-
Hook vultures are not altruistic.
-
@JammyJewels said:
Sadly they already do. Nea’s brown shirt is pretty stealthy in cornfields and generally brown areas. And all P3s darken the characters quite a bit.Which isn't a reason to go deeper into that BS.
-
Cosmetics should never provide an in-game advantage.
-
@fluffybunny said:
@Orion said:
@fluffybunny said:
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
TLDR: A "first hook" rescue should automatically have a 10 second borrowed time effect (that would stack with the perk) to discourage camping/tunneling and reduce toxicity in the game.*EDIT: I've also suggested in a comment further down a benefit to killer- "It would be cool if killers got double sacrifice blood points for hooking a different survivor from the one they hooked last."
The killers will just chase after you for the duration. They already do that for BT.
I also think there should be more benefit for switching targets instead of tunneling the last hooked, though giving survivors more to do while working on gens (like finding fuel cans, etc.) may also help as killers may feel pressured to get the 4k and win.
Perhaps more to punish camping and tunneling point-wise may also be helpful.
Punishment does not work. Hook vultures are proof of that.
Regardless I don't think camping and tunneling should be an easy way to rank up and I've been told by people that it is.
If Killers rank up by camping, it's because Survivors fed them. There's no reason a camper should get more than one kill - if they even get the one.
What you call "tunneling" is really called "going for the weak link" or "playing efficiently" or "playing smart". If you see a generator at 90% and another at 0%, you don't go for the 0%, do you? -
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
You know this comment section is really funny, some people complain that this wouldn't change anything and isn't even worth implementing and some people complain that it would be too OP. Amazing.You're surprised that different people have different points of view and different opinions on the same subject?
-
@fluffybunny said:
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
TLDR: A "first hook" rescue should automatically have a 10 second borrowed time effect (that would stack with the perk) to discourage camping/tunneling and reduce toxicity in the game.*EDIT: I've also suggested in a comment further down a benefit to killer- "It would be cool if killers got double sacrifice blood points for hooking a different survivor from the one they hooked last."
The killers will just chase after you for the duration. They already do that for BT.
I also think there should be more benefit for switching targets instead of tunneling the last hooked, though giving survivors more to do while working on gens (like finding fuel cans, etc.) may also help as killers may feel pressured to get the 4k and win.
Perhaps more to punish camping and tunneling point-wise may also be helpful.
Punishment does not work. Hook vultures are proof of that.
-
@Boss said:
@PhantomMask20763 said:
Isn't it Light Yagami not the other way around?Japanese like to say the last name first. (Or at least in anime they do, i know nothing of their irl cultures.)
Either works honestly.Indeed. The family name is more important than the given name in most eastern cultures.
-
Yes, please.
-
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
@Orion said:
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
@Orion said:
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
@lasombra1979 said:
So you want to create a mechanic giving survivors a free borrowed time, thus punishing killers who do not camp, and also punishes killers who have are dealing with overly altruistic survivors (you know, unhook farmers), just because there are some killers who do camp (which is completely within the rules).This literally can't punish killers that don't camp and would only apply to the first hook and wouldn't apply after the exit gate is powered, I previously gave the example of getting hooked once, receiving an unsafe hook rescue (which is out of your control), being rehooked and camped till dead, how is that fair? They could make it so having the borrowed time effect activate still counts as an unsafe hook rescue unless the rescuer runs the perk "borrowed time").
You're literally complaining about people who unhook in the Killer's face, so this would definitely affect those who don't camp. Hook vultures don't wait until the Killer has left the area.
If you're going to lie about your intentions, at least be consistent.First of all f*ck you for calling me a liar, second of all this would punish the person preforming the unsafe hook rescue instead of the person getting an unsafe hook rescue.
If you're not lying, then you need to get your thoughts straight, because right now they're all over the place.
Nope, my argument at it's core is simply that dying on your first hook sucks and there should be a mechanic in place to make it less likely.
There is, it's called "hook rescues", but they're not up to you because if you made it to the hook, you have failed. You, however, have suggested that the Killer should be actively punished for being able to hook you, and that you should be actively rewarded for being hooked.
-
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
@Orion said:
@SpongeBob420Pants said:
@lasombra1979 said:
So you want to create a mechanic giving survivors a free borrowed time, thus punishing killers who do not camp, and also punishes killers who have are dealing with overly altruistic survivors (you know, unhook farmers), just because there are some killers who do camp (which is completely within the rules).This literally can't punish killers that don't camp and would only apply to the first hook and wouldn't apply after the exit gate is powered, I previously gave the example of getting hooked once, receiving an unsafe hook rescue (which is out of your control), being rehooked and camped till dead, how is that fair? They could make it so having the borrowed time effect activate still counts as an unsafe hook rescue unless the rescuer runs the perk "borrowed time").
You're literally complaining about people who unhook in the Killer's face, so this would definitely affect those who don't camp. Hook vultures don't wait until the Killer has left the area.
If you're going to lie about your intentions, at least be consistent.First of all f*ck you for calling me a liar, second of all this would punish the person preforming the unsafe hook rescue instead of the person getting an unsafe hook rescue.
If you're not lying, then you need to get your thoughts straight, because right now they're all over the place.
-
@Gorgonia said:
I want to eat chocolate now.I know, right? Thanks a lot, @JammyJewels!