Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
People troll to get a reaction out of you.
PS: I'm a survivor main and I've never said "EZ" to the killer. I rarely say anything other than "GG" (usually not even that).
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Have a Perk in this trying time
Killer: Pain Ledger
You see the Hook Stages of Survivors.
If a single Survivor would have the most Hook Stages remaining across all other Living Survivors, they become Exposed for 60/70/80s.
That'd just make BBQ overpowered and destroy stealth play. Someone needs to work on gens while you're looping, after all.
-
My best guess is, a lot of killer mains switched to survivor and vice-versa, to get their crowns. So a large portion of survivors and killers are now at low ranks. There should also be more killers overall than usual, due to Nemesis (killer queues always spike around new killer releases).
-
Rank? Region?
-
@Dustin said:
While I do agree with you and you have sound reasoning I feel it would be better to just give killer the ability to see all hooks. I get the argument of "would encourage tunneling" but killers are going to tunnel someone regardless and if they plan to make sure someone dies they're going to do it without the need to remember the hook status.
Granted regardless your suggestion is the next best option so I support it.
The devs don't want to give killers the hook status of every survivor, and this is really just for Obsession builds.
-
If you give them examples of words that are being blocked, but shouldn't, it's much easier for them to fix it.
-
Since nobody made a suggestion, I went ahead and took the liberty to suggest what I think would be the perfect change: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/264827/qol-change-for-obsession-builds-hook-state-for-the-obsession-is-shown-to-the-killer#latest
-
@ich_häng_mal_rum said:
@Orion I never said that survivor perks should override killerperks but I don’t get why it should be the other way. All you say is „it’s a asymmetrical game“ and that’s just no argument.
so it means in your logic disrortion shouldn’t hide the aura, inner strength should be affected by sloppy... is that your opinion??
@Orion I never said that survivor perks should override killerperks but I don’t get why it should be the other way. All you say is „it’s a asymmetrical game“ and that’s just no argument.
It is an argument, though. In an asymmetrical game like DbD, you can't have each individual survivor be as strong as each killer, because that's just unbalanced. All 4 survivors together are supposed to be able to match the killer. That's how the game remains balanced.
so it means in your logic disrortion shouldn’t hide the aura, inner strength should be affected by sloppy... is that your opinion??
Note that Distortion has a limited number of uses (because it'd be too strong otherwise), and Inner Strength is not the same as the healing interaction, so it makes sense that it's not affected by Sloppy Butcher.
-
I would love it if DCers and toxic people had to play with each other and only each other, but, unfortunately, what constitutes toxic behavior is too subjective.
-
@ich_häng_mal_rum said:
@Orion I‘m open for a constructive discussion, but not discuss only for discuss...
As am I. If you can explain why you think it's balanced that survivor perks can override killer perks, despite DbD being a 4v1 asymmetrical game, feel free to do so.
-
@Putti said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345349#Comment_2345349
Its reasonably deadly when people want to sit in exit and wait for the killer, doesnt it
I disagree.
I sometimes wait in the exit to draw the killer to me while my teammates leave through the other gate (or vice-versa).
Other times, it may be possible to save a hooked survivor, in which case one of us sits by a gate while the other checks the hook. If the killer comes to the gate, whoever is at the gate leaves while the other rescues. If the killer is at the gate, we both leave.
There are a lot of situations where waiting at the gate is not intended to be toxic, but strategic.
-
This will just make survivors stand 9 meters away. It also seems like a better version of Bloodwarden and would be unreasonably deadly when combined with it.
-
@ich_häng_mal_rum said:
@Orion and I gave you 9 reasons why it’s mustn’t be
...Which don't work in an asymmetrical game. This isn't 1v1, it's 4v1.
-
@ich_häng_mal_rum said:
@Orion I don’t care which perk top another one, I said only that there is no reason that it must be the killerperk. It’s just a cheap argument in posts before.
And I gave you a reason for why it must (or should) be the killer perk.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345243#Comment_2345243
In the current state of the game, sure, not rewarding the killer potentially gives 3 survivors a chance to escape.
Here is the problem though. Most of the time neither of those 3 survivors had fun. Nobody has fun holding M1 through an entire match. It is the same feeling as when a killer afks, and survivors are scrounging for more points. This doesn’t help the grind that already exists.
Do I think that in the best case scenario all 3 should be able to escape? Absolutely. Do I think this creates a fun and interactive experience? Not in the least.
So for me, this is where I see potential for the game to grow. Sometimes it also means growing out of these scenarios that do not promote fun.
I agree that it's not fun, but it's also not:
- Abusive (it's a strategy in most instances, only a small fraction of camping is intentionally abusive)
- Unbalanced (the killer is literally standing still for two minutes after having chased a single survivor for a long time, giving everyone else free reign - if anything, camping favors smart survivors)
- An issue that should be resolved from the killer's side
Survivors need to learn to bite the bullet from time to time.
-
@ich_häng_mal_rum said:
Sorry but I really don’t get the point of this discussion. The changes have only an impact on a op-stridor-spirit so in my eyes it’s totally fine. All people who crying just want a free spirit win. And why shouldn’t a survivor perk top a killerperk? The killer has such a huge impact to the game, starts with the choice of the killer, lobbydodging, than the lobby to see items, check profils, swfs and in game to choose the tactic like 3gening, slug, camp, tunnel... so don’t ask for survivor nerfs and be ok-ish that the only killer who use stridor is overperforming with that and this have to be adressed for long time.
And why shouldn’t a survivor perk top a killerperk?
Because that's not how asymmetrical games are supposed to work. 4 survivors working together are equal to 1 killer. That's how it's supposed to work.
And before you say that I just want a "free spirit win" (as if there were such a thing as a "free win"), note that not only do I not play Spirit, I don't play killer at all.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345250#Comment_2345250
Yeah no I know the words. But i couldnt make sense of the context in which they were used. English is still my second language but sometimes it is hard to get a grasp for the intended meaning.
Because it's not a normal usage of the word. It's a neologism, coined by a rapper, I believe, and then co-opted by a very different group.
Anyway, I don't want to go off-topic, that's why I said you should look it up on Google.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345234#Comment_2345234
Ehm sorry English is not my mother language and I can't follow. Retract what? Based what?
Simply for my understanding please.
You should look it up on Google. Usually, when seemingly random words are used in a way that makes no sense to most people, they have the same origin.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345217#Comment_2345217
I respectfully disagree. Killers who camp for the 1k generally make those of us who actually took the time to learn a killer look bad.
I am not asking for killers to play how survivors want to play, but I am also not tone deaf to how silly standing by a hook while 3 others hold M1 looks.
That isn’t how the game is meant to be played or else you’d have a “Camping Emblem” attached to the ones that already exist.
Camping would almost stop altogether if survivors didn't reward it. Sure, maybe once in a while you get the odd team that knows not to reward campers, but most of the time, the killer is rewarded for camping with an easy 3-4k trial. That's what I mean by an attitude change: survivors as a whole need to stop rewarding campers.
-
People trying to win are not toxic just because they do it in a way you don't enjoy.
-
@ReviloDBD said:
I actually whole-heartedly agree, I'm not really sure I understand the reasoning as to why we can't disable the chat censor.. in any other game I think I have ever played there was always the option... regardless of ESRB rating btw (cause I saw someone mention that)
I don't swear so the censor doesn't bother me in that way, what is extremely frustrating about the censor is that it seems constantly be censoring words that aren't actually bad words.
For example: JUST in this last match lobby I hate now...
A survivor complimented my horrible nurse practice and I tried to write:
"I did horrible, but ty!"
It came out as "I did horrible, *** **!" - which actually made it look like I was trying to be an ass and talk smack, even though I was legitimately trying to thank the person.
This is just one example, literally "But, ty" was censored. This happens to me all the time, and I'm not trying to say anything rude. It's very annoying and I think it gives people the wrong impression of me.
You can report these issues to the devs, we have a bug report section for a reason. However, having the option to turn it off for yourself wouldn't do anything. The other person, if they had it on (which I'm guessing most people would have), would still see the same thing that you saw before you'd turned it off.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345152#Comment_2345152
I am simply pointing out that anytime someone as much as breathes the words “camping should be addressed” this whole “they already tried it and it didn’t work because survivors abused it” words get randomly thrown. It is an observation I have from being on these forums.
For me if the killer is flat out Camping and no one is there, that isn’t survivors placing the killer in that situation. That is the killer attempting to force the situation onto survivors. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to get at? But to me that is the killer saying “I don’t care if you do generators I am not playing the game”.
Furthermore, my main concern isn’t even about other survivors, but I am much more interested in finding ways to make that survivor on the hook feel like they even played the game, even if it’s throwing points at them for basically opting to stay. Life is too short and queues are too long to be stuck in a match where the killer wants to keep you hostage rendering you unable to do anything. I have never played any other game where this type of abusive behavior was allowed without resulting in some balance change.
I am simply pointing out that anytime someone as much as breathes the words “camping should be addressed” this whole “they already tried it and it didn’t work because survivors abused it” words get randomly thrown. It is an observation I have from being on these forums.
In my experience, that's said when people propose the thing that has already been tried and proven to be a failure.
For me if the killer is flat out Camping and no one is there, that isn’t survivors placing the killer in that situation. That is the killer attempting to force the situation onto survivors.
The killer should be able to force situations onto survivors, though. That's one of the characteristics of an asymmetrical game.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to get at? But to me that is the killer saying “I don’t care if you do generators I am not playing the game”.
Bait can be a very powerful tool, if used correctly. The killer is playing the game, they're just doing it in a way that many survivors find unpleasant.
Furthermore, my main concern isn’t even about other survivors, but I am much more interested in finding ways to make that survivor on the hook feel like they even played the game, even if it’s throwing points at them for basically opting to stay.
Failure should not be rewarded in video games. And yes, that survivor failed - it's how they ended up on the hook. If you die too soon, you learn from your mistakes and try to do better next time. That's how every game works.
Life is too short and queues are too long to be stuck in a match where the killer wants to keep you hostage rendering you unable to do anything.
You're not being held hostage. You probably know what the term actually means, so let's not dilute its meaning.
I have never played any other game where this type of abusive behavior was allowed without resulting in some balance change.
I went back to BF3 a few years back, decided to hop onto multiplayer. I ended up in a game where we'd lost control of the entire map and were stuck at spawn. Any time one of us stepped out, the enemy team would be there, waiting for us, and killed us fairly quickly. We could've pushed them back if we worked together, but many decided to give up and just wait it out.
For many survivors, this would be considered abusive behavior. How dare the other team not give us a chance? However, it's just how PvP games work. It wasn't unbalanced or abusive, the other team just wanted to make sure they'd win.
Camping doesn't need a balance change, it needs an attitude change.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2344993#Comment_2344993
You know, first off yes they tried something in the past. I’m sure OP wasn’t even around when it happened, but I am also sure he/she didn’t “do it” to themselves.
This is such a poor attitude to have, especially when it is a well known fact that Camping isn’t always just used as a “strat”.
Just because they tried something and it didn’t work out, does not mean that is the end of all things. They could have approached other ideas are here as long as every other survivor is holding M1 (you know being bored out of their skull) the struggle timer slows down the more the killer remains in the area.
It’s not rocket science.
None of the suggested "fixes" for the thing they tried addresses why it was a failure in the first place. Simply put, survivors should not be able to place the killer in a situation where the correct course of action is to let the survivors do whatever they want, unless those survivors are just overwhelmingly better than the killer (in which case it's a matchmaking problem). That is a massive balance issue.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345139#Comment_2345139
And there you have it, your "choice" what I've been saying, make it a choice
If someone can prove it's actually censoring things it shouldn't, and there's no way to change that, I'll consider supporting that. However, for what you want to do? No. The whole point of the censor is that it blocks exactly what you want to use the chat for.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345129#Comment_2345129
As I've said over and over yet I seem to keep having to repeat myself, make it a choice, where is the harm in a choice to see it. As for the "thats not healthy" ever heard of rage rooms? It is healthy to get emotions out, they're stupid little emotions from a game so its an easy vent of a little line in a chat. If I don't get that then I'll get my satisfaction from a toxic game as killer, which do you prefer? A line of chat people don't even have to see or a 10-15 minute game of 4 players who have to suffer slugging, camping, and tunneling to make them possibly rage quit or as many people I know have done they simply stop playing the game altogether because that stuff is too common and its annoying.
It's your choice how to process your emotions. Personally, when a game is getting to me, I just stop playing it and go do something else.
-
@ShinobuSK said:
Chat filter is needed since this 18 rated game is mostly played by 13yo kids. Next step should be censoring hits and dying animations
I would legitimately pay for a cosmetic DLC that made the killers have foam swords and basically changed everything to be kid-appropriate, like the Little Sister vision in Bioshock. That sounds funny as hell.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345103#Comment_2345103
Its the big point of free speech. Let me say what I feel like saying whether its particularly nice or not. If other people can't see it then wonderful, I got out my little gamer rage for that match from whether it was camping, tunneling, flashlights, gen rushing, or whatever else. If they got to see my insult great, they know they're scum. If they didn't see it then cool they move on happily. Everyone moves on how they wanted to. If I instead see something stupid and not even an insult or a profanity get censored, now I'm annoyed, maybe I was already annoyed, maybe now I wanna be toxic because censors are dumb. (stupid jump I know but hang with me) Now instead of saying something in a chat where people can press continue or even keep a censor on to be toxic I'm in an actual game, camping, tunneling, ruining someone elses game and making them hate the game.
Free speech does not exist in private venues. Anyone can kick you out if they don't like what you have to say. You should look up what that concept actually means and, specifically, who (or what) is prevented from curbing what you say.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345095#Comment_2345095
Okay first off, I don't remember many specific examples nor do most players because we hate the censor as a whole so why would we care about these little things, second since you must have an example, in a game about killing people I said something with "kill you" in the sentence. If the sentence goes "kill you" it censors whereas if its "kill us" it doesnt, so a lot of those things where people were like "mine says it though" is probably minor differences in the order of words. Third off, there is a huge thing you keep ignoring when you say to not get rid of it which is that I asked for the option to turn it off, that doesn't get rid of it, it provides a solution for the sensitive people, and it would please the majority of people who hate these censors like myself. As for the legislation, no I don't know it, why would I know that, therefore I left it pretty heavily implied that I don't know so heres a solution that should more than highly likely satisfy it.
Okay first off, I don't remember many specific examples nor do most players because we hate the censor as a whole so why would we care about these little things
Because it seems to bother you a whole lot, so I'd expect you to remember at least a few examples.
You shouldn't assume your opinion is the majority, though. I'd argue most players don't care about it.
second since you must have an example, in a game about killing people I said something with "kill you" in the sentence. If the sentence goes "kill you" it censors whereas if its "kill us" it doesnt, so a lot of those things where people were like "mine says it though" is probably minor differences in the order of words.
Nope. People have claimed that "myers", for example, is censored. Just the word "myers", nothing else. Then someone else posted a screenshot of them saying "myers", uncensored, and I tried it myself just to be sure.
Third off, there is a huge thing you keep ignoring when you say to not get rid of it which is that I asked for the option to turn it off, that doesn't get rid of it, it provides a solution for the sensitive people, and it would please the majority of people who hate these censors like myself.
Again, it's not "sensitive" to not want to be insulted, it's just normal human behavior. And you may or may not be in the majority. My money's on "not".
Why does it even matter, though? If I say "######### corn", the forum automatically censors it, but the context still makes it perfectly clear what I just said.
As for the legislation, no I don't know it, why would I know that, therefore I left it pretty heavily implied that I don't know so heres a solution that should more than highly likely satisfy it.
I have zero information about you. As far as I know, you're in some legal profession and suggested something that you know would satisfy the current legislation. The way you wrote it heavily implied that you did know it.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345088#Comment_2345088
Man, its almost like I provided a solution that most guidelines are okay with. The only ones that aren't are things for children, which idk if you noticed but a game where people are killed every round isn't exactly super child friendly
I just asked if you knew the actual legislation/guidelines/whatever governing these things. If you know, you can just say so. If you don't and are just speculating, you can say that too.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345082#Comment_2345082
"Daddy Myers kill us harder please"
Never had any of those words censored.
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345082#Comment_2345082
As I said, lot of stuff thats dumb is censored, just random things that I'm like why even. And as I said as well, if you don't like it then leave the censors on or press continue. Move on, why is it forced on everyone.
I haven't seen dumb stuff censored, though. People claiming that dumb stuff is censored? Absolutely. Actual proof? Not so much. Every time someone says something is censored, someone else will have a screenshot of the words not being censored. So, I ask you again, what, exactly, is being censored that shouldn't be?
PS: Even if there is stuff being censored that shouldn't be, the right course of action would be to make a bug report so the devs can improve on the censor. If the devs took your "throw the baby out with the bath water" approach, the entire game would be deleted due to bugs.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345080#Comment_2345080
While valid, I feel like in an "adult" horror game (take adult with a huge grain of salt obviously) they should be allowed to let people turn off censors and not be in trouble. Having censors as a default would be a safety net, a warning to turn them off if needed saying "you must be 18 years of age," and they're more than likely fine for stuff like that.
Do you know what the legislation is in that regard? What you feel about the situation may not correlate to the facts.
-
@mexicowl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2345065#Comment_2345065
What pros? "I didn't get called the b-word"? If people are too sensitive to see words then they can press continue and not see the chat, if they want to chat but not see that stuff then leave the censor on if that were an option. There's no downside to letting people say what they want other than people getting their feelings hurt for leaving censor on and even then thats on those people.
Nobody likes to be insulted, though. That's not being "sensitive", it's normal human behavior based on normal human emotions. I feel like the people losing their ######### over not being able to insult others without having those insults blocked are the sensitive ones.
What, exactly, do you need to say that's being blocked by the censor?
-
@mexicowl said:
Its tragic to see this post because this is what borrowed was useful for for the longest time. It used to protect both the rescuer and the rescuee but they nerfed it really hard.
Original BT made it so going after the unhooked survivor was always the better decision. It incentivized tunneling and rewarded people for bad saves. Why would anyone go after the guy who takes three hits to go down instead of the one who just takes two?
-
@ich_häng_mal_rum said:
@Orion At first for facecamping (especially on first hook) is just unfun and a broken gamemechanic in my opinion, expect in the egc.
I asked for possible solutions, it shouldn’t have to be a perk. Maybe it could be bubba loose chainsaw charges near a hooked survivor, so there is a chance for a rescue...
Let's start with the basics. Why should there be a chance for a rescue if the killer is right there? Why should you be allowed to ignore the killer's presence and agency?
-
@ShinobuSK said:
No. It was some matchmaking bug, not MMR
I guess it was a long shot... Thanks for the info.
-
Proposed change: the killer can always see how many times the Obsession has been hooked. It's in line with the concept of Obsession (the killer is obsessing over that survivor, so they keep track of what happens to them) and serves as a minor QoL change for Obsession builds.
-
What perk do you propose that wouldn't make all chainsaws and one-hit effects worthless? Your suggestion ignores the fact that camping is a useful tool and shouldn't be punished just because the killer happens to be good at it.
-
Urban Evasion unless you can put up a map offering that guarantees they won't see you walking away. Fixated is a crutch perk.
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2340244#Comment_2340244
what are you talking about? As opposed to the report function? that gets most likely thousands sometimes bunk reports? They obviously dont know the hit box is messed up there since they put it in there like that. So obviously people point it out and they become aware of it and fix it.
If you wrote a proper bug report, with all the details, then that will make them aware of it. I'm asking you how additional threads complaining about the issue (and you essentially advertising how to abuse this bug) are supposed to help them fix the issue. What's the connection between the number of threads and how quickly a programmer can find and fix a bug?
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2340192#Comment_2340192
No the complaint was to do something about it and people were vocal enough to get the devs to do something about it. (The game crash with dc penalty on) My original post was complaining about the dc penalty being on while the game was busted. Like i said you didnt understand what i was saying. No overall game balance cannot be addressed very fast but glitches and bugs with hitboxes can. It doesnt mean that they will but being vocal about it will increase the chances of it being fixed. You guys aren't disproving anything by saying "but they wont balance all of the games issues that we have been complaining about for years so what makes you think they will correct a small hitbox?" Its whataboutism
If you're so sure, then please explain your thought process. Why does it take less time for programmers to find the source of a bug and fix it if people complain more? What's the actual connection between the two; how does it work?
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2340065#Comment_2340065
I dont think it was a coincidence either fyi i think you are just looking to get into an argument on the forums.
I know it wasn't the volume of complaints that had anything to do with the change. As @burt0r already pointed out, there's a big difference between remotely enabling/disabling a function and finding/fixing a bug in code.
If you're right, it should be very easy to show a correlation between the volume of complaints and how quickly something gets fixed. Again, as @burt0r pointed out, there have been many complaints over the years about pretty much everything.
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2340065#Comment_2340065
Excuse me for wanting to do something other then "hope the devs fix it one day" I remember you. You just like to be a contrarian. I value opposing view points but how can you not see the other persons view at all?
What part of my comment makes you think I don't understand what you're saying? Is it because I disagreed with you? I thought I addressed it well enough to show that I understood your point of view.
PS: If I just liked to be a contrarian, I would disagree with those who said what I said. I just don't like going into a thread to say "Yes, I agree with you 100%". That's what the "Vote Up" button is for.
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2340043#Comment_2340043
I disagree, many people complained about the dc penalties being active while the game was crashing so frequently and because of it it got turned off immediately. Power of the community
And a hyper-specific bug for the Switch was fixed despite having no loud complaints.
What you saw there was just a coincidence. It's a fallacy called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Means "after this, therefore because of this".
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2340035#Comment_2340035
So we just ignore it and hope the devs just fix it? I'm in favor of making everyone aware. Louder the complaint gets the more attention itll get
Yes, like I said, throwing gasoline in a fire. The time it takes to find and fix something in a program has no relation to how serious it is, how often people abuse it, or how loudly they complain about it. It doesn't work that way.
-
@ArchAbhor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2339775#Comment_2339775
i did, but this is to make everyone aware of it. As they should be so that it doesnt just get thrown under the rug
That will just guarantee more people abuse it. It's like throwing gasoline in a fire to make the problem bigger than it has any reason to be just so people "pay attention".
-
I used it recently and it's still reliant on camera angle.
-
@Sypherpathic said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2339400#Comment_2339400
And we can all see the impact you had. Thanks for getting that fixed.
I play a game as long as it's fun. I take a break or leave when it's not. It's not any grand statement and you're not really impacting anything acting like you stopped to teach the devs a lesson. You didn't.
Do you take this tack with everything in your life? Something goes bad at work, quit! Kid acts up? Get rid of him! Car trouble? Sell it?
Weird.
Sure, if a game becomes unbearable I won't play it. But to think that stopping playing sends some grand message, well. Maybe I was in the WoW trenches too long.
Best I could do is not buy Cyberpunk. I am a huge fan of the genre. I have read Cyberpunk since the actual 80s. I've played Shadowrun on and off for years, bought many games. I was a kickstarter supporter of Shadowrun Returns. I could NOT wait for Cyberpunk to come out. Regretfully, I can't buy it. It's reportedly terrible and the KIND of terrible that it reportedly is is the kind of terrible I dislike. I don't, however, think I am making a discernible message to the developers. I just know I would be disappointed if I play it.
I'm an individual. I can only do so much.
Those things are not comparable to a live service like video games and you know it. Seriously, you're comparing abandoning children with not playing a video game?
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2339372#Comment_2339372
Probably not until they get competition that has staying power and, as well, addresses the issues commonly found in DbD. If an Asymmetrical came out with definitive win/loss states, and gave players the feeling they can fully play out a match without being instantly removed, it would highlight the shortcomings of DbD and perhaps motivate BHVR to do something.
If it were that easy, someone would've made another game by now. Fact is, asymmetrical games often fail because people can't accept that each individual on one side has to be stronger than each individual on the other side. They demand buffs for the weaker side because they perceive the game as a 1v1 (their perspective as individual players) and refuse to see the game as a whole (4v1, 5v2, etc.).
By the way, someone always has to die first. That's the purpose of the killer role, to kill, and it's how it works in every slasher film. If you'd make it so killers had to constantly switch targets, you'd have to make survivors so pathetically weak, they'd go down in a chase inside of 15 seconds.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2339369#Comment_2339369
The 200-250 for Siege also includes their writers, artists, etc. They have stated several times that by Ubi standards, they are a small team.
That's not relevant. The 500-600 number you quoted is all Behaviour Interactive employees, not just DbD developers. That's the only thing I said.
-
@Damarus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2339351#Comment_2339351
I remember for sure that Clash was not disabled on the first occurances of the glitch. That said, BHVR is largely known for applying the so called band-aids, instead of true fixes. Hence why they didn't even stop for a moment to consider that having the event play out during the mess they made on frames and other things was going to be idiotic. Still, here we are. I am not entirely sure about Rainbow, anyway. It's enjoyable, most of the time, but many of the modifications they made were because they cater towards the "Pro" league. The recent Zofia withstand bs, for instance. And Ash still doesn't have a proper hitbox. But yeah, overall they manage things more aptly than what we have seen on this game, this far. Wonder if it is ever going to change.
From the devs' perspective, all these issues are tolerable and don't stop people from playing the game, since everyone who experiences them keeps playing the game.
You know what I did when I found the matchmaking an issue because I kept getting survivors who were much stronger than me? I stopped playing killer altogether (instead of playing occasionally). I didn't play killer, reach high ranks, complain about the matchmaker, and then continued playing, because that just means I don't really mind the problem.