Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
@HUNGRY_AS_A_HIPPY said:
@Orion said:
@HUNGRY_AS_A_HIPPY said:
"THE GHOST" - Spirit (Ultra Rare)
The Khugwemuu symbol, representing the spirit world, glows ominously on the head of the bell.Grants total invisibility
At all times, or only when cloaked?
Only when cloaked.
I mean, I know it sounds good at first, but with other add-ons it'd probably be a broken combination.
-
@AnthonyC2014 said:
@THE_HOOMAN_CHILD said:
Does the killer choose who to take with them? Is it just random ?Or is it much more sinister ?!!Not a loop, actually. If you die the entity takes you to the Void, where you sit there since it has no further purpose for you, you have given all your hope. If you survive, you return to the campfire and wait for your next trial. The loop only occurs if you survive.
Wrong. If you die, you go back to the campfire. If you survive, you go back to the campfire. If you become desensitized and stop having strong emotional reactions She can feed on, then you go to the Void.
-
Some people are under the (false) impression that the developers hand-pick the perks and purposefully avoid paid DLC perks to "force" people to buy the DLCs.
-
@wisdom said:
They removed the nurses aim assist.no killer has aim assist in this game.
All Killers had aim assist at release, then it was removed from all Killers except the Nurse, and finally it was removed from the Nurse. Survivors mistakenly attributed hits to said aim assist, when it actually caused more misses than hits. Killers warned Survivors that removing aim assist would not benefit them and would, in fact, be a buff to Killers. They didn't listen.
-
@Raccoon said:
This, however, would be a HUGE nerf to survivors.They didn't listen when the same thing was said of removing the aim-assist, do you really think they'll listen now? They're too arrogant to consider that other people - the people who've experienced it from both sides - might actually know better, and too prone to projection to believe that you're being honest and actually trying to help them.
-
@DemonDaddy said:
The fact that the # of totems left is unknown without voice coms is a benefit for the killer. The idea being survivors may still be looking after all have been cleansed. Its not a baby tool though, granted it is used by noobs far more often. Its a tactical choice that heavily relies on survivors rushing to get out. It is easily negated but has a huge pay off when it does activate.So it's high-risk, high-reward, and primarily benefits newbies, while good Killers have next to no benefit from it. Sounds like a perfectly balanced mechanic.
-
There's also a small probability that the perk will appear in the Shrine of Secrets, where it can be purchased with Iridescent Shards that are earned just by playing the game.
-
I would be happy to write for DbD. I can send samples of my (unpublished and unfinished) work.
-
@SmokePotion said:
@Orion said:
@SmokePotion said:
@Orion said:
@SmokePotion said:
according to the stats just released. It would seem like it's balanced. an average of half the survivors are killed per trial. And I would think that's about ideal. You wouldn't want 75-100% escaping, or dying on average. That's a lopsided stat.That being said, there's definately work to be done. And I hear they are working on it, just slowly.
I also feel like they need to take another sample for that statistic, further away from events.
Speaking only from my own point of view (which is no more or less valid than anyone else's in this instance), if I knew only 75% of Survivors escaped, an escape would feel much more deserved and skillful.
I think you said that backwards, but I understood your meaning.
And I guess, and there is an arguement for it in an asymetrical game. But I think 50% is about right. it gives a good margin for skill. Average killers, or an average game, is 2 kills. That makes sense.
I did say it backwards and fixed it. 50% does make sense, but the problem with that flat statistic is that it makes a lot of assumptions about the state of the game. Chiefly, that ranks are the best indicator of skill and that everyone is trying to escape/kill.
I don't really think it says anyhting about the rank system, but I would concur that it requires that everyone be trying to escape/kill. But with a midling percentile like 50% the margin of error for "trolling" doesn't tip the scale in any one direction.
My guess is that people want this game to be Evolve or Friday the 13th. Where the monster was super OP. But we saw how well that concept works. They need to adjust how SWF groups can bully a killer/ gen rush and depip the killer. But the game is balancing out, and isn't in a horrible state. No matter how mad I get at some really lopsided mechanics in the game.
Evolve and F13th suffered from literally the opposite problem - the monster was too weak. Now, I've never played F13th, so that's just hearsay, but I did play Evolve. As Paladin Parnell, unless the monster player was an absolute god who could crush us in stage 1 (it happened, a friend of mine did it and completely dominated the entire match), I was able to go toe-to-toe with a stage 2 monster and be virtually unkillable. Even after he was nerfed, that didn't change much.
-
@SmokePotion said:
@Orion said:
@SmokePotion said:
according to the stats just released. It would seem like it's balanced. an average of half the survivors are killed per trial. And I would think that's about ideal. You wouldn't want 75-100% escaping, or dying on average. That's a lopsided stat.That being said, there's definately work to be done. And I hear they are working on it, just slowly.
I also feel like they need to take another sample for that statistic, further away from events.
Speaking only from my own point of view (which is no more or less valid than anyone else's in this instance), if I knew only 75% of Survivors escaped, an escape would feel much more deserved and skillful.
I think you said that backwards, but I understood your meaning.
And I guess, and there is an arguement for it in an asymetrical game. But I think 50% is about right. it gives a good margin for skill. Average killers, or an average game, is 2 kills. That makes sense.
I did say it backwards and fixed it. 50% does make sense, but the problem with that flat statistic is that it makes a lot of assumptions about the state of the game. Chiefly, that ranks are the best indicator of skill and that everyone is trying to escape/kill.
-
[Glances at 660 Awesomes]
Huh. -
@SmokePotion said:
according to the stats just released. It would seem like it's balanced. an average of half the survivors are killed per trial. And I would think that's about ideal. You wouldn't want 75-100% escaping, or dying on average. That's a lopsided stat.That being said, there's definately work to be done. And I hear they are working on it, just slowly.
I also feel like they need to take another sample for that statistic, further away from events.
Speaking only from my own point of view (which is no more or less valid than anyone else's in this instance), if I knew only 25% of Survivors escaped, an escape would feel much more deserved and skillful.
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Fibijean said:
@Unicorn Oh ew. That sounds terrible. Is there a way to disable receiving messages from randoms?Also @friendlykillermain lol commas make all the difference
yes they do
just remember kids learn your grammar and dont become a kinky pirate
Don't kink shame.
-
@Fibijean said:
@Orion not when it comes to intentions, because intentions are a situational thing. You intend something in the moment. You can change your opinions after the fact, but you can't change your original intentions. So if we're going to define an exploit as something which exists outside of what the devs intended for a particular mechanic, then no, they can't change their minds.On the other hand, if we're defining it instead as existing outside of how the devs think something should work, then yeah they can change their minds about whether something is an exploit, but opinions are subjective, which brings us back to the question of whether the devs' opinions should be taken as gospel or simply another perspective to consider.
Well, the devs are the ones with control over the game, and exploits are things they didn't intend and don't want in the game. Explain why their word isn't the only word that matters when it comes to what they're making.
People who believe in "Death of the Author" strike me as the type who'd argue with God about humans being bipedal.
-
@Fibijean said:
@Orion Yes, but devs can claim that something is an intended mechanic when what it actually was is a bug that they liked the effect of. Bethesda does it all the time. No one is saying that the dev's opinions are worthless, just that perhaps they shouldn't be taken as infallible gospel and rather we should look to the game itself to work out whether a tactic is gamebreaking or not.Are people not allowed to change their minds? They're still the ones who decide what is and isn't an exploit.
-
Which isn't the same thing as not having a proper functionality. The code is the way it is, and things that happen outside what they intend are bugs, plain and simple.
-
@Fibijean said:
@Wahara In other words, the fact that the devs say something is so is less important than one's interpretation based on the evidence present in the work itself. I would encourage @Orion to consider the possibility that whether or not the author intended to do or say something, what matters is what emerges in their work because that's what they actually did or said. If someone wrote a book where they said "the cat was black" and then afterwards they told everyone "actually, I intended for the cat to be brown all along", well... that's what the author said, sure, but fans could be forgiven for holding the author's actions, that is, what they actually wrote about the cat, in higher regard than whatever they claimed after the fact.Except we're not talking about a writer not expressing himself properly (god knows I've made plenty of mistakes there); we're talking about whether something that can be done in a game was intended or not; i.e.: whether or not it's an exploit. There is no "they just didn't explain it properly"; there's just intended mechanics and bugs.
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@MegaWaffle said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
@MegaWaffle said:
@Orion said:
@michaelmyers87 said:
The more of a newbie you are, the more likely you are to just leave."I don't care about the primary aspect of the Survivor role, so those who do are noobs."
Actually he used "newbie" not "noobie" both have a different definition. The meaning of "newbie" is someone new to the game/situation at hand. I have to agree that new players are more likely to feel like leaving rather than saving someone, I just don't believe its the only reason why people make the choice.
Last I checked (to be fair, that was a very long time ago), they're simply alternate spellings of the same word and with the same meaning.
pretty sure noob is just a slang for new person and newb was also a slang and because people love slang we accepted both of them and now those to lazy to type newb now just double tap o for a simpler spelling noob mostly just comes down to lazyness
Same here, but then again, I am quite old, in Internet terms.
same though i hate all these new phrases ive said oof for a long time now that its a meme people think i just jumped on the bandwagon and its really annoying also just using the term jumped on the bandwagon reveals im not from this era
Yeah considering I grew up in an age of dial up internet and Nintendo Power magazines I too find it difficult to keep up with internet "slang".
when i see young teens i can barly follow waht theyre saying i want to back to the good ol days where the playground argument was snes v genesis
snes totally won though i mean how can you compete with earthbound super metroid super mario world yoshis island fzero mario kart link to the past and so much more snes was the best time for games in my opinion
Am I the only one who was bored by Super Mario games?
-
@MegaWaffle said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
@MegaWaffle said:
@Orion said:
@michaelmyers87 said:
The more of a newbie you are, the more likely you are to just leave."I don't care about the primary aspect of the Survivor role, so those who do are noobs."
Actually he used "newbie" not "noobie" both have a different definition. The meaning of "newbie" is someone new to the game/situation at hand. I have to agree that new players are more likely to feel like leaving rather than saving someone, I just don't believe its the only reason why people make the choice.
Last I checked (to be fair, that was a very long time ago), they're simply alternate spellings of the same word and with the same meaning.
pretty sure noob is just a slang for new person and newb was also a slang and because people love slang we accepted both of them and now those to lazy to type newb now just double tap o for a simpler spelling noob mostly just comes down to lazyness
Same here, but then again, I am quite old, in Internet terms.
same though i hate all these new phrases ive said oof for a long time now that its a meme people think i just jumped on the bandwagon and its really annoying also just using the term jumped on the bandwagon reveals im not from this era
Yeah considering I grew up in an age of dial up internet and Nintendo Power magazines I too find it difficult to keep up with internet "slang".
I don't find it difficult, merely irrelevant. You can usually figure out what people mean by context and tone. Furthermore, Internet communication using Internet slang usually boils down to insults anyway.
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
@MegaWaffle said:
@Orion said:
@michaelmyers87 said:
The more of a newbie you are, the more likely you are to just leave."I don't care about the primary aspect of the Survivor role, so those who do are noobs."
Actually he used "newbie" not "noobie" both have a different definition. The meaning of "newbie" is someone new to the game/situation at hand. I have to agree that new players are more likely to feel like leaving rather than saving someone, I just don't believe its the only reason why people make the choice.
Last I checked (to be fair, that was a very long time ago), they're simply alternate spellings of the same word and with the same meaning.
pretty sure noob is just a slang for new person and newb was also a slang and because people love slang we accepted both of them and now those to lazy to type newb now just double tap o for a simpler spelling noob mostly just comes down to lazyness
Same here, but then again, I am quite old, in Internet terms.
-
@MegaWaffle said:
@Orion said:
@michaelmyers87 said:
The more of a newbie you are, the more likely you are to just leave."I don't care about the primary aspect of the Survivor role, so those who do are noobs."
Actually he used "newbie" not "noobie" both have a different definition. The meaning of "newbie" is someone new to the game/situation at hand. I have to agree that new players are more likely to feel like leaving rather than saving someone, I just don't believe its the only reason why people make the choice.
Last I checked (to be fair, that was a very long time ago), they're simply alternate spellings of the same word and with the same meaning.
-
@michaelmyers87 said:
The more of a newbie you are, the more likely you are to just leave."I don't care about the primary aspect of the Survivor role, so those who do are noobs."
-
Steam has been out for 15 years and I still see bugs that prevent me from sending messages until I restart it.
Newsflash: Any software more complex than "Hello world" has bugs and will always have bugs. Programmers are human, and humans are fallible. -
@HUNGRY_AS_A_HIPPY said:
"THE GHOST" - Spirit (Ultra Rare)
The Khugwemuu symbol, representing the spirit world, glows ominously on the head of the bell.Grants total invisibility
At all times, or only when cloaked?
-
Unfortunately, it's not bugged. It's one of the reasons why I pretty much stopped playing Nurse.
-
@AmorePrincess said:
It happened to me too, but this person really didnt know why it happened. Had to walk into my own trap to break the whole thing and drop her, tried several times.
Thought it was a bug and not an exploit, but it sure sounds like it from what you say.An exploit is just a bug that's being (ab)used to the player's benefit.
-
Devs from every game should hire DbD Survivors to find exploits in their games.
-
@Fibijean said:
@Orion @Wahara Have either of you ever heard of Authorial Intent vs. Death of the Author? It's a literary thing but can be applied to any kind of work from books to paintings to video games. Basically, the way it works is this:If you believe in Authorial Intent, as Orion does, you believe that the author (in this case, the developer/s) has supreme authority over how their work is interpreted by virtue of being its creator. (A literary example might be if there was a character of indescriminate race whose descriptions may have suggested but didn't explicitly mention that they were black. The author insists that the character is white because that's what they intended, therefore the character is white, end of discussion.) Here, Orion is arguing that because the devs designed the game mechanics, they get to determine what is and isn't an exploit based on their own feelings and intentions, and whether or not something appears to be an exploit is irrelevant if the devs say it isn't so.
If you believe in Death of the Author, on the other hand, which is what Wahara seems to be arguing in favour of, you believe that the author more or less relinquishes creative control the moment they release their work to public scrutiny. It now belongs as much to their fans as it does to them, if not more so. Therefore, the author can still have opinions and they can still say what their intentions were, but the fans are free to draw conclusions about the work based on what's actually there. (To expand on the example above, some fans in that scenario might have read the character as black because the author's descriptions, intentional or not, seemed to suggest that that was the case. These fans can therefore reasonably argue that the character could actually have been black, regardless of what the author says, because that's a conclusion that can be drawn from the work itself.) Wahara is arguing that the developers may have their own ideas about what is and isn't an exploit, but the word of the devs is not infallible gospel, and the players can still draw their own conclusions based on their observations of game mechanics, and those conclusions are equally valid.
Apologies and please correct me if I've represented either of your viewpoints inaccurately. I'm just trying to point out that your discussion isn't going anywhere and won't any time soon because you're both working from fundamentally different bases and at the same time thinking the other person is unreasonable because you assume that they must reasonably believe the same as you do with regards to the above. As long as you're both just stating what you believe, you're never going to convince each other of anything, but hopefully this will help to clear up where the discrepencies are.
Yes, I have, and "Death of the Author" is an absurd concept. The person who designed/wrote it knows what they intend and what they don't. They know what is true and what isn't. To argue that your opinion of an author's work trumps the author's own would be like arguing with reality that gravity should work backwards. It's not your work; it's not your decision.
-
@Wahara said:
I didn't say the developers were lying. You cannot even talk to me without muddying what I'm saying. What I am saying is the argument that "the devs said so" is bad because there can be evidence that something wasn't intended even if they say it was. Whether or not something is or isn't an exploit shouldn't be evaluated on the sole basis that the developers say it was an intended feature but the credible likelihood that it was.Truth doesn't become fiction just because people find it unbelievable. You didn't directly say they were lying, but you did say that your opinion of the credibility of their word is objective evidence that their word is true or false.
-
@Aerys said:
@Orion
I agree, but suffering the consequences after a 60 to 120 second jog vs a 20 to 40 second slaughter are very different consequences and only she has the improved version. Her strengths far exceed any of her weaknesses and it doesn't take an honest man to admit that, anyone can see it, some are just choosing not to and I'm unsure how to reason with them and show that there is logic in what I say as well, because everything you guys have said about playing against her I agree with, stealth is important, mind games are important, flashlights if you have em, etc etc, but the fact remains that she's vastly stronger than most Killers and it's not just a crackpot idea I had, it's a commonly and well explained (elsewhere, not by me apparently) and accepted notion.Her weaknesses are that she has her FoV greatly reduced after each and every use of her power, must use her power to win chases (she's slower than Survivors, after all), and most of her add-ons are actively detrimental due to the players' reliance on muscle memory.
The notion that the Nurse is stronger than most Killers is accepted by Survivors who, as I said before, only know how to loop. They don't want to learn how to counter her, because that would take actual skill and work. Ad populum is not a good argument. -
@Vecors said:
@Orion said:
@Vecors said:
Measurements gainst dc do nothing, i for example just suicide every 2nd-in-a-row match gainst a nurse and spirit, but unfortunately thats not enough to drop below rank 2. I dont enjoy people picking the wheelchair killer so i just suicide - people will always find a way around bad design. Games starting with 3 people, lobby bug, random design choices to please dumb people -it might get harder to get the best out of the gaming experience but never impossible.It's no wonder you lose to those Killers when you don't even try to learn.
Didnt mean to trigger you, nurse main.
edit: i just noticed i didnt mention myself losing against them - you should stick with the facts.
Not a Nurse main or even a Killer main. I didn't mean to trigger you, DC main.
EDIT: You did mention losing against them. DC=Lose. If you could win, you wouldn't give up immediately. -
@Aerys said:
@Orion
As a game dev myself I would have to strongly disagree, even the most inane input can be noteworthy due to it working the brain and allowing you to see your content from another perspective. Sure, a lot of the time it's mostly people whining or calling for changes they want because they think it'd be kewl or neat and not because it'd be balanced, but even those can be useful, if you see a metric ton of people whining about something perhaps there's something to it beyond "Well they're noobs and don't know what they're talking about". The purpose of a game is after all to give the Players an enjoyable experience, and while that may be a bit more tricky in a competitive scene that goal shouldn't change or be set aside.In the end I can understand why they don't respond to each and every thread, but reading them and taking in criticism is one of the best ways to not create a vision you had that ends up being completely out of touch with your playerbase and so it's super important they create a forum in order to hear them, but giving absolutely no feedback does in some form discourage people from sharing their opinions, feeling like it doesn't matter or it's a waste of time, or that all we're doing is circle jerking one another over things we think will be read but actually don't. (Not saying they actually don't, but again I've only been around a short while and have seen no direct interaction as of yet).
They do read them. I'm saying that very few suggestions are noteworthy in the sense that they don't warrant a response.
-
@Vecors said:
Measurements gainst dc do nothing, i for example just suicide every 2nd-in-a-row match gainst a nurse and spirit, but unfortunately thats not enough to drop below rank 2. I dont enjoy people picking the wheelchair killer so i just suicide - people will always find a way around bad design. Games starting with 3 people, lobby bug, random design choices to please dumb people -it might get harder to get the best out of the gaming experience but never impossible.It's no wonder you lose to those Killers when you don't even try to learn.
-
@Aerys said:
@Orion
Right, in a perfect world you would never get into a chase with any Killer because you're a stealth god, but people get caught out and chased, that's pretty much the entire point of the game (It's one of the few actions that both players get points for simultaneously even). powerbats' points are by no means reliable, one is for when you aren't even in a chase (but sure, helpful nonetheless to keep track of where she's at) and the other isn't a guaranteed strat but a mind game that, if she has enough blink in her, can easily be bested. So, if the only legitimate strategy to facing a Killer is to never be scene I would say that Killer is a tad on the broken side wouldn't you? (Well, I guess you wouldn't since that's what we're debating and all, but still you get my point).The Nurse has her strengths and weaknesses, just like every other Killer. If you can't learn and take advantage of her weaknesses, you've got no business complaining about her strengths. If you get caught, that means you failed at stealth and should suffer the consequences.
-
@Aerys said:
@powerbats
Okay but I've never seen a Dev respond to any thread in this section of the forums, nor is there a sticky that says anything about anything in terms of answering our questions. But again I've only been around a month and a bit so it's not a lot of time to know whether or not they do, and ideally they're busy developing rather than writing out full length responses to us, I do grasp that much.They reply in a suggestion thread and people will either take it out of context, or get jealous that their own threads didn't get replies. Better to be neutral instead of wasting precious time figuring out which threads to reply to. Fact is, very few suggestions are noteworthy in any way.
-
@Wahara said:
I swear to God, I don't know why you quote me when you don't read what I say. I already said I don't think dribbling is an exploit. I'm just saying the argument you're using is bad, because video game developers can say lots of stupid things to save face. If you could glitch through walls and they said that was intended all a long, would you believe them?I don't know why you post responses to me when you don't read what you're writing. Let's go through this point by point. My argument:
- Exploiting is taking advantage of something that wasn't intended to be in the game.
- Developers make the game.
- By virtue of making the game, developers determine what is and isn't intended to be in the game.
- Ergo, developers have the first, final, and only say in what is and isn't an exploit.
Now here's your argument:
- Exploiting is taking advantage of something that wasn't intended to be in the game.
- Developers make the game.
- By virtue of making the game, developers determine what is and isn't intended to be in the game.
- Ergo, the developers can't say what is and isn't an exploit, and their "opinions" about what they intended to be in the game are equivalent to any random player's.
Can you see the non-sequitur? Because I sure can.
EDIT: I'm ignoring your claim that the developers are lying because that's just you grasping at straws to justify your own arrogant belief that you have any say in what constitutes an exploit.
-
@Aerys said:
@Orion
I'm not sure how to explain to you that the ability to warp through walls and prevent pallets/windows from being of any use is in fact an inherent advantage she has, but disregarding that, tell me, how do you face a Nurse and survive her "chase"? What are the other things Survivors can learn how to do that will make playing against Nurse a winnable endeavor? Yes, having a flashlight can certainly help, but let's say you were unlucky enough to not be part of the flashlight brigade nor did you find one within the limited chests on the map, how does one face her in this scenario?Don't get into a chase in the first place, for example. Killers are not omniscient, and despite what some people might think, wallhacks are exceedingly rare. powerbats pointed out a few other counters. Again, the problem boils down to Survivors not knowing how to play against a Killer who is immune to the only thing they know how to do.
-
@Wahara said:
An exploit is when you take advantage of a game design flaw or something that wasn't intended by the developers to be included in the game to get a leg up. The developers can offer their opinion on whether something is an exploit or not, but they're not automatically right or wrong because they're the developers. Your analogy would fit if we were talking about the lore or something, like say, if I were arguing that Huntress isn't actually old, or that the spirit isn't vengeful. In that context an appeal to authority is acceptable, not here.So you admit an exploit is taking advantage of a game design flaw or something that wasn't intended by the developers. The developers say it's intended (and thus isn't a flaw). How does this contradict what I said?
-
@Brady said:
We all know DS and NOEDs are best friends because they both have one thing in common:They reward you being ######### at the game.
But, it's not hard to go and find all 5 totems at 1 generator left. Soooo..
DS punishes Killers for catching Survivors. NOED punishes Survivors for not breaking totems. They're not equivalent in any way, shape, or form.
-
@Aerys said:
@Orion
Yuh huh, and at the high ranks you're saying a person who's put dozens of hours into Nurse is going to fail her jumps frequently? We aren't talking about the bad Nurse players when talking about balance, we're talking about the ones who can use her power to the fullest, when balancing a game that's always what you're talking about. So can you, and the rest of you, say that Nurse is completely balanced and not stronger than every other Killer by far when played at her fullest potential?Yes, if a player can play her perfectly, she's the strongest Killer by far, but not because of any inherent advantage. Most Survivors nowadays only know how to loop. They never learned how to win chases; only how to delay them. The Nurse cannot be looped, so, naturally, they lose, because she takes away the one thing they know how to do.
-
Nurse is fine. Her power is highly rewarding if you use it correctly and equally punishing if you fail.
-
For Killers who are reliant on add-ons, make weak add-ons part of their base kits and nerf the powerful ones so that the end result (bonuses and the like) is the same.
This is also how you make the game more balanced at the low end of the skill spectrum without affecting the other end. -
You teleport because you're playing Nurse - that's her power.
-
It's annoying, but the devs have automated systems in place to deal with this. After every ban wave, those very players come here to complain that they (or "a friend") got banned for disconnecting and try to make themselves out to be the good guys. It's hilarious.
-
@kane151 said:
If killers have to camp and tunnel to win a match then maybe they need to go and play another game, it’s not fair to constantly chase the same person over and over again, I’ve been in games were the killer has ignored me and carried on looking for someone that was hitWhy is it not fair for your opponent to play efficiently (going for the easier target), intelligently (not falling for bait), within the confines of the rules (no rules against chasing Survivors, last I checked), and capitalize on someone's mistakes (the Survivor failed at stealth and lost the chase, after all)?
-
@Crizpen said:
@Krampus said:
So, I just got camped, Again. The doors were open. 2 Of my teammates left me, the last one just looked as the killer stood next to me. It was a nurseCan the developers do so the more you camp the slower you get? I mean JUST SOMETHING TO STOP THESE NOOBS THAT CANT PLAY THE GAME CORRECTLY!
I just played as the Clown and the survivors camped three generators until they were complete! And then, after I kicked another one, they ran back and tunneled it! WHY CAN'T PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME CORRECTLY!
Survivors should get a penalty for staying close to a generator!
You are completely right, camping and tunneling is out of control. For every second a Survivor is near a generator, it should be damaged by 1% (relative to the maximum), and if it reaches zero, that generator can never be repaired again. And after a Killer damages a generator, Survivors cannot work on it, but only for 30 seconds, so it's fair.
-
1+1=2
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@Orion said:
Pretty much every horror game was "going to kill DbD", or was "competition" for DbD (one user even said "enemy", or something along those lines).what do people have against it
Some people just hate popular things because their own lives are devoid of joy, so they want to bring everyone down to their level by trying to make the people who enjoy them as miserable as possible. That's how trolls work.
-
Pretty much every horror game was "going to kill DbD", or was "competition" for DbD (one user even said "enemy", or something along those lines).
-
@Entità said:
@Orion @Master I do not agree with the idea that, since a reform cannot be perfect (because of SWF), then it should not be done: the excellent is the enemy of good, produces only immobility.SWF poses undeniable problems of balance: if you balance on SWF, the solitary survivors are passed off, while balancing on the solitary survivors, the killers complain about a game too unfair: we all know, do not need to repeat it every time: in my opinion, the only possible solution is to give the survivors some passive skills that reduce the gap with the organized teams, and then calculate the counterweights on SWF.
Because if your house is on fire, ignoring the flames and storing wool in a room adjacent to them is a bad idea.
Suggest ideas to balance the game mode we do have first, instead of suggesting more unbalanced game modes.