Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Der_Schatten said:
AND THINK ABOUT THE BLOODPOINTS.
Im a Rank 1 killer and love to Play wraith... i Use BBQ, ruin, Thanatophobia and Nurse Calling and i Never camp and Never Tunnel. With BBQ and Thana i can play very aggresiv. i get around 24-32k Bloodpoints 2x for BBQ is 48k-64k. even if i Kill only 2 or even 1 i got 40k cuz i realy want to fill my BBQ.
i saw Campers got all 4 Survivors... round ends and they got 8k... #########? What a Time waste. think about your Bloodpoints not about "winning or killing" BLOODPOINTS is all you (should) want in DBD.So because you want BP and other people have different objectives, the game should shift to adjust to how you play, even if it creates a major imbalance? Right.
-
This is how you get rid of camping: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/6157/how-to-stop-tactical-camping
The problem is that Survivors would rather treat the symptom than the disease. Camping works because Survivors let it work, and is necessary because of the way the game is.
-
Der_Schatten, if you don't see how Survivors can abuse such a system, then you clearly need to play Killer in high ranks. Or hell, just read the complaints on the Steam forum.
-
That sounds awesome. Maybe the perk's symbol could mimic a countdown timer.
-
@Der_Schatten said:
My Idea for Camping:
If the Killer is closer than 24Meters (Not the Heartbeat, since they just counter it with insidious) the Hooked Survivor dont lose his Life... so that means if the Killer does not leave the Survivor, he cant die on the Hook. Leave him, let him be rescued and hook him again. Than Probably Campers will switch to Tunnler but... at least a survivor has a Chance to play a bit longer... not die on his first hook cuz Killers have no ballsAlready tried, Survivors abused it. Any good ideas that don't involve distance to the hook?
-
@JxshHxrvey said:
@Orion said:
A better thought on camping: learn to deal with it.Nurse flair checks out.
Who said I play Nurse?
-
A better thought on camping: learn to deal with it.
-
It's probably your Internet connection. Restart your router and modem.
-
Time for a history lesson.
Back when the game was new and Survivors didn't know how to play exploit the game, they were scared of the Killer, and thus had no time to be dicks. As time went on, exploits were found and abused by them, leading to cockiness and toxicity.
Killers lashed out in kind, as you would expect. Combine that with the fact that Survivors, being the majority, got their way for years, turning the Killer into little more than a joke, and Killers were pretty frustrated.
Fast-forward to now. The developers are addressing the balance issues by buffing Killers and nerfing Survivors for the first time. Survivors feel their power is being taken from them, so like racists and homophobes complaining about equality, they play the victim card and pretend the whole world is against them, which (in their minds) justifies their toxicity.
Meanwhile, Killers are still pretty upset about the developers letting the game get to this state, as well as the Survivors who troll them, so toxicity is very much alive. -
I love how the Survivor mindset is always to punish people who don't do what they want. Don't try to figure out the problem; just smack somebody around until they do what you say.
Dodging is a symptom of a greater problem with the game. Punishing Killers for it will guarantee that most of them will leave, as that will be the only remaining option available to them. If Survivors were to look past the most superficial part of a problem, they'd realize this.
-
Since you tagged this PS4, I'm guessing you're playing on a console, meaning everyone else has the same speed you do. How is it a handicap?
-
This is how you fix camping: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/6157/how-to-stop-tactical-camping
Of course, Survivors only think in terms of punishing things they don't like; they don't think about the cause of their grievances...
-
Yes, actually. I enjoy the thrill of having the Killer walk past me closely enough that I can touch them, without realizing I was even there to begin with.
-
If you want to stop camping, this is how you do it: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/6157/how-to-stop-tactical-camping#latest
-
@Mr_Grumpy said:
the best thing you can do is to ignore people like this, these kind of player are not worth the attention they get.Best thing you can do is report and move on. Zero tolerance.
-
Your suggestion would create an imbalance in the game. In a perfectly balanced game, if the Killer is standing in an area, Survivors are supposed to clear out if they can, no matter what. You want to make it so if the Killer is standing in an area, Survivors can approach and ignore the Killer altogether. I don't care what rationalization you have, this is an imbalance of power.
There should never be a situation where Survivors can ignore the presence of the Killer, or an area where the Killer is punished for going/staying (i.e.: a safe area for Survivors).
-
@BillyIII said:
EG Nerfing Freddy despite being told not to by the community
Freddy nerf was in response to the community though. Go to the dlc reviews and select the very first date range. All the most-upvoted reviews are negative, claiming that he is OP.
It was in response to the vocal Survivor community, to be precise, but it seems the devs have learned not to trust them when it comes to balancing the game.
-
No such time-out ever existed, connections are not one-way, and if the bug could be detected just like that, chances are it wouldn't be a bug any more. Other than that, great plan.
-
@Master said:
@White_Owl said:
You can see it at this link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/8sfiie/im_a_trapper_main_so_i_decided_to_make_the_mori/I thought it would be nice to share it here.
Stuff like this makes me sad. Some community members take so much time to do sth like this and then I look at the devs....
That's because the devs have to make the game profitable for it to continue existing, and can't dedicate several days of their work for stuff like that. Community members who make this stuff, on the other hand, are largely unemployed or otherwise have a ton of time on their hands; furthermore, nobody gets pissy if they get something wrong.
-
All of them need absurd buffs.
-
@Chett said:
Yea, dont stick to the intention of my post - When do you Devs fix this very easy to use speehack for Killers ?
Instead keep slapping around with moral.Btw, i was aware that this could happen (ban). Guess what ? Now they saw how easy it is, and there are no longer any excuses for them.
But lets stick to double standards. Instead of facing the problem.
I am not a developer. However, there is no double standard. If you're caught breaking the rules, you get punished. Name-and-shame is self-evident, but hacking isn't. Maybe you're too new to remember bugs like the Hag not being stunned by DS, but I'm not.
-
@Chett said:
I didnt name and shame. I just asked a Question - if they are gona fix it. We will always have to deal with hackers/cheaters, but in this case its just laughable how easy it is. I am not giving a hint, cause i know my post will be deleted in a blink of an eye, but again - I just asked a simple question. And in my first post (that got deleted) i showed the devs how freaking easy it is. Maybe they werent aware of, maybe they are. For me that doesnt matter, if they are not willing to have a conversation bout this.And Orion sounds like a private Account of an employe smile
Believe what you will. Showing how to hack on an open forum should always get your post deleted. I'd go one step further and say you should've been permanently banned, but that's just me.
-
Never mind. Lack of punctuation made it hard to understand the comment.
-
@Rob_Zombi3 said:
@Orion said:
@Rob_Zombi3 said:
@ZombieGenesis said:
Yours may be legit, absolutely, but not everyone's is. So a blanket rule is needed. Did you submit your video to moderators?Pointless. They will say "report ingame". In game report system is not working. Its loop. You cant send it via e-mail neither.
So its "do-all-you-like" to hackers. Sad.@Orion said:
Name-and-shame is not allowed, period. There's a proper way to report players for cheating. Witch-hunts are not tolerated, as it should be.No, there is literally ZERO way to report players for cheating. In game report system dont even have category for possible hacking, if that would be case that its working now. Witch hunts are one thing, proper accusation with proofs on video are whole another story. Name and shame have legit reason then. If this system is protecting more hackers than fair players, that rule is IMHO just wrong.
There is a way to report players for cheating. The fact that you don't see insta-bans is what makes you and other people believe that reports don't work. Guess what? The devs have to sift through the evidence. You are not judge, jury, and executioner. Name-and-shame all you'd like, it'll just get you banned.
I want to be heard. So tell me the way to report players for cheating? In game? How to do that with video proof?
I have no interested to be jury or executioner, I want devs starting to take anti-cheat protection seriously and guess what? They don't. Pls point me to the judges. I want to have their time to hear me out and get them my evidence....
PS: And btw. the guy I caught doing it its apparently doing it for months (reddit post with same steam ID asking if its legit). Thats for "insta-bans"Yes, I know you want to be heard. It's the same with everyone who names-and-shames or posts "how-to" guides for hacks and exploits. They want to be heard, and they think the best way to do that is to break the rules and help damage the game further. Fact is, it just gets you banned.
They do take anti-cheat protection seriously. EAC works just like VAC, in that it looks for known cheats and the basic fundamentals of how cheating works. New cheats are added to its database so they can be properly found. The devs have explained time and time again how to report cheaters. If you really want to learn, go watch their streams until you find the right one; the most recent one where they explain it.
PS: The main reason cheaters get away with it is people like you, who don't use the proper channels to report people, or otherwise don't even try to report people. What you're doing, naming-and-shaming, is equivalent to driving up to BHVR's HQ, yelling the information from a megaphone, and then expecting them to take action.
-
@Rob_Zombi3 said:
@ZombieGenesis said:
Yours may be legit, absolutely, but not everyone's is. So a blanket rule is needed. Did you submit your video to moderators?Pointless. They will say "report ingame". In game report system is not working. Its loop. You cant send it via e-mail neither.
So its "do-all-you-like" to hackers. Sad.@Orion said:
Name-and-shame is not allowed, period. There's a proper way to report players for cheating. Witch-hunts are not tolerated, as it should be.No, there is literally ZERO way to report players for cheating. In game report system dont even have category for possible hacking, if that would be case that its working now. Witch hunts are one thing, proper accusation with proofs on video are whole another story. Name and shame have legit reason then. If this system is protecting more hackers than fair players, that rule is IMHO just wrong.
There is a way to report players for cheating. The fact that you don't see insta-bans is what makes you and other people believe that reports don't work. Guess what? The devs have to sift through the evidence. You are not judge, jury, and executioner. Name-and-shame all you'd like, it'll just get you banned.
-
So you want to create a situation in which the weak side has the advantage. This is not an acceptable option. If you can't rescue, then don't rescue. It's that simple. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean you can. You're supposed to be afraid of the Killer if he's in a location; instead you want to be able to ignore him completely.
-
Name-and-shame is not allowed, period. There's a proper way to report players for cheating. Witch-hunts are not tolerated, as it should be.
-
Survivors can survive chases without exhaustion perks. If you can't survive without exhaustion perks that's one thing, and it's something you should work on.
-
You want to create a situation in which a Killer is powerless to stop Survivors. This creates a power imbalance in the Survivors' favor, which is against the basic principle behind an asymmetrical game. Your idea is bad because of that.
-
@Master said:
@Orion said:
@Master said:
@Orion said:
Exactly, Runiver. Survivors simply recover too quickly, in a manner completely disproportionate to the time Killers spend to injure them in the first place. It's baffling that in a 4v1 asymmetrical game, the (supposed) strong side wastes 60 seconds achieving something that one member of the (supposed) weak side can undo in 10 seconds.Yes but in DBD the "weak" side is actually not weak, thats what causes all this problems. This is not gonna be changed however, dev have showed no intention at all to change that
I know. It's in the massive OP I wrote. However, the devs are clearly trying to change that.
Not really tbh, I thought looping would radically change when they promised mindgame pallets for 2.0, but look what we got..... nothing changed besides from teh vacuum
The change they made was believed by everyone to change looping. It didn't work out that way. It happens. However, it's exactly what everyone believed would be sufficient to change looping.
Like I said in another thread, the problem, in the end, will always be the Survivors. Remove pallet vacuum, they just make fewer loops before dropping the pallet.
Radical changes are necessary, to massively shift the game in the Killers' favor and force Survivors to play better. As proven by the so-called "Depip squad", if Survivors play optimally, Killers cannot succeed. The only way this will change is through a massive shift in the Killers' favor. -
I like these ideas, but some should just be a default effect.
That said, some are also unfeasible, and others are just plain pointless. -
@Master said:
@Orion said:
Exactly, Runiver. Survivors simply recover too quickly, in a manner completely disproportionate to the time Killers spend to injure them in the first place. It's baffling that in a 4v1 asymmetrical game, the (supposed) strong side wastes 60 seconds achieving something that one member of the (supposed) weak side can undo in 10 seconds.Yes but in DBD the "weak" side is actually not weak, thats what causes all this problems. This is not gonna be changed however, dev have showed no intention at all to change that
I know. It's in the massive OP I wrote. However, the devs are clearly trying to change that.
-
Exactly, Runiver. Survivors simply recover too quickly, in a manner completely disproportionate to the time Killers spend to injure them in the first place. It's baffling that in a 4v1 asymmetrical game, the (supposed) strong side wastes 60 seconds achieving something that one member of the (supposed) weak side can undo in 10 seconds.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Orion said:
I explained why your idea is bad and why derivatives of it will always be bad.Some ideas just don't work. Constructive criticism is not possible for those ideas.
I do understand your point, but i think you;re giving up too easily based on what the devs failed to do once before.
I'm "giving up" based on my understanding of why it failed and my understanding of the game.
-
I explained why your idea is bad and why derivatives of it will always be bad.
Some ideas just don't work. Constructive criticism is not possible for those ideas.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@DocOctober said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@DocOctober said:
All in all, any such discussion is pointless from the start.The devs have tried two separate anti-camping mechanics in two separate PTBs. Both times, the Survivors abused the mechanics so thoroughly, to both the detriment of the Killer AND the hooked Survivor, that the devs eventually decided to scrap any anti-camping mechanic for good and never implement one ever again.
The devs will only ever give incentives now to leave the Hook (mainly Perks like Pop Goes The Weasel, Devour Hope, Make Your Choice, Barbecue & Chilli) instead of punishments for not doing so.
I'l say it again that the devs seem to think the solution is more simple than it is. They need to stop rushing their ideas and really make a long thought out game changing mechanic that would benefit the killer more than the survivor. It's what i'm doing but i'm asking for improvements.
Tough luck. The devs were quite clear: no more punishments for camping, only incentives not to do it.
Camping is a strategic choice made by the Killer that can work out in their favour or backfire horribly, all depending on what the other Survivors do.
The devs also said they weren't adding a clown, things happen. Tbh man i mainly made this thread for fun and to know what people think.
People think your idea is bad. I've said this ad nauseam, yet you keep blaming us for "not getting" your idea.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Orion said:
@BigBadPiggy said:
I feel like this would be really good. I play killer myself and rarely camp (A survivor trying to rat out others or just being scummy to other survivors) and I feel like this would really work against the ones who camp nonstop. just add it in the next update and not put it in the patch notes at all, only inform people when they get really salty because they can't camp as efficiently. The campers would be so salty it's like the Dead Sea washed over the DBD community.This was already tried in a PTB. Survivors abused it to the point the devs decided to never try something like this again. Bottom line is, there is absolutely no reason to punish the killer for defending his kill.
I've said previously that they have indeed done it before. But with no reward for the killer leaving and no time it wouldn't work (eg when survivors are in the area/the exit gates are open). I'm so annoyed that everyone is so hostile to this idea just because the devs ######### it up once. They didn't have any variables to it and it was rushed idea with no thought. Purely if the killer is near, you die slower. And also, the idea i suggested would be a killer buff. Leaving the area causes a speed increase is insane, you could go and find someone else, and catch them faster.
Punishing the Killer for staying close to the hook - regardless of the situation - will never work, because catching a Survivor is not worth the potential trade-off of allowing the one you already have to be rescued and healed, thereby resetting your progress.
Buffing a Killer for not being near the hook might work, but only if the buff is so massive that it considerably shortens the length of a chase or otherwise completely stops the Survivors' progress. For example, if generator repairs were impossible if there was a hooked Survivor and the Killer was more than 10m from the hook (or actively engaged in a chase), that might be a trade-off worth having.
In the end, though, Survivors will always be the problem. Make it so they can't be within 8m of the hook for the Killer debuff to trigger, and they'll stay at 9m. Make it so the debuff doesn't apply if they're being chased, and they'll just abuse the chase triggers.Unhooking takes a fraction of the time it takes to hook, with massive rewards for both Survivors and a near-total reset of the Killer's progress. Inversely, hooking a Survivor can take anywhere from 40% to 100% of the generators, and any incentive the Killer might need to let all that work go to waste would need to be beyond broken.
We're "hostile to this idea" because it is a bad idea. That's what you're not getting: your idea is bad. It was bad when the devs tried it (twice), it's bad now, and it will always be a bad idea. Stop blaming us because you can't accept that fact.
-
@mcNuggets said:
Fellow Survivors bming the killer or getting camped, tunneled.I would wish gens would take more and a death of a fellow survivor wouldnt mean the gens are getting done any slower. (Adjust gen times per player count PLS FINALLY)
And why would you punish Killers for being good and reward Survivors for being bad?
-
@BigBadPiggy said:
I feel like this would be really good. I play killer myself and rarely camp (A survivor trying to rat out others or just being scummy to other survivors) and I feel like this would really work against the ones who camp nonstop. just add it in the next update and not put it in the patch notes at all, only inform people when they get really salty because they can't camp as efficiently. The campers would be so salty it's like the Dead Sea washed over the DBD community.This was already tried in a PTB. Survivors abused it to the point the devs decided to never try something like this again. Bottom line is, there is absolutely no reason to punish the killer for defending his kill.
-
This bug needs to become a feature.
-
@Visionmaker said:
Orion said:@Visionmaker said:
85% of the people with ttv at the end of their name has been toxic and/or dcers for me.
So I agree with you, anecdotally. It's obvious that very few streamers build their following from being wholesome.
Because "being wholesome" doesn't net you anything. After 2 years of "wholesome" streaming, I had exactly one regular viewer out of over 100 followers, whom I then lost when I stopped streaming for a while due to real-life issues. Being toxic is what most people find amusing. "Being wholesome" is what most people find boring.
I figured. Hence why I absolutely loathe queuing in the streamers.
Whether it be ######### survivor streamers that taunt and clicky clicky and DC after getting caught, or the ######### killer streamers that get a rise out of facecamping and bodyblocking survivors in the basement.
Id say most of the top streamers are decent though, but the bottom feeders are all I ever run into it seems.
In my experience, only people who started streaming when streaming was gaining popularity could actually afford to not be toxic and still gain followers/viewers. The rest had a choice to make: don't be toxic and remain a largely unknown streamer, or appeal to the lowest common denominator and (maybe) get lucky.
-
@Coriander said:
Wouldn't DC'ing when they lose harm their reputation? Why do it when you know there are people watching?Because the people who watch them either don't care, or agree with their excuses (what they call "reasons") for DC'ing.
-
@Visionmaker said:
85% of the people with ttv at the end of their name has been toxic and/or dcers for me.So I agree with you, anecdotally. It's obvious that very few streamers build their following from being wholesome.
Because "being wholesome" doesn't net you anything. After 2 years of "wholesome" streaming, I had exactly one regular viewer out of over 100 followers, whom I then lost when I stopped streaming for a while due to real-life issues. Being toxic is what most people find amusing. "Being wholesome" is what most people find boring.
-
Other Survivors hookrushing when the Killer is standing right there, thereby getting me killed a lot more quickly.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Orion said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Orion said:
Name one reason why killers shouldn't be allowed to defend the hook.I mean i already did say why they shouldn't stand there for no reason when there's nobody nearby and the gates aren't open but they're just a salty [BAD WORD] who wants to secure one kill. It's boring for both teams, it encourages toxicity from survivors as camping puts pressure on them to use crutch perks, play SWF with flashlights, and go for saves the moment the killer hooks them. This then encourages killers to camp more as survivors are always sitting around the hook as it becomes a habit. Another reason it's bad is it rewards killers for getting salty, rather than playing the game how it's supposed to be played, rewarding them for standing there, hitting their victim because they didn't like the fact they wasted their time, when really they should have just left that survivor if they were hard to catch and gone for someone else. If you can't catch someone, leave them and go for easier prey, don't be a baby and ruin everyone's game because you're bad and stubborn. I gave you plenty of good reasons why killers camp. I have no problem with justifiably defending their hooks though, which i think you may have misunderstood. And before you call me an entitled survivor, i'm a killer main and camping without survivors swarming you or the exit gates open is disgusting, if you want to get to rank 1, go defend the objectives not the poor soul whose game you're ruining, while making yours as boring as possible.
I mean a valid reason that takes into consideration the game's mechanics, as opposed to a reason that takes into consideration wild guesses and player entitlement.
I've already stated many times that this idea would only work if the game was balanced. Read the thread before complaining. I don't understand what you mean by wild guesses and like i said i'm a killer main, and as a killer main yes i do believe players are entitled to be hooked more than one time.
I did read that part, and even if the game were balanced, this change would still be asinine. Punishing a killer for defending his objective would be like making the gates close if too many survivors approached them. I don't care if you're a killer main or not, because your idea is bad.
Players are not entitled to anything outside the scope of the rules and game mechanics. The Wraith is not entitled to teleport. Jake is not entitled to sabotage the Hillbilly's chainsaw.
A Survivor is not entitled to getting off the hook after the Killer spent an inordinate amount of time to get them there, not to mention outplaying the Survivor at every turn. At that point, it's up to the remaining Survivors to mount an effective rescue. If they can, good for them. If they can't, then the Survivor will die. The Killer is not obligated to give them more chances than the game already presents them with.
-
If it's true, that guy probably just cost the representative his job by betraying his trust. That's my 2 cents.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Orion said:
Name one reason why killers shouldn't be allowed to defend the hook.I mean i already did say why they shouldn't stand there for no reason when there's nobody nearby and the gates aren't open but they're just a salty [BAD WORD] who wants to secure one kill. It's boring for both teams, it encourages toxicity from survivors as camping puts pressure on them to use crutch perks, play SWF with flashlights, and go for saves the moment the killer hooks them. This then encourages killers to camp more as survivors are always sitting around the hook as it becomes a habit. Another reason it's bad is it rewards killers for getting salty, rather than playing the game how it's supposed to be played, rewarding them for standing there, hitting their victim because they didn't like the fact they wasted their time, when really they should have just left that survivor if they were hard to catch and gone for someone else. If you can't catch someone, leave them and go for easier prey, don't be a baby and ruin everyone's game because you're bad and stubborn. I gave you plenty of good reasons why killers camp. I have no problem with justifiably defending their hooks though, which i think you may have misunderstood. And before you call me an entitled survivor, i'm a killer main and camping without survivors swarming you or the exit gates open is disgusting, if you want to get to rank 1, go defend the objectives not the poor soul whose game you're ruining, while making yours as boring as possible.
I mean a valid reason that takes into consideration the game's mechanics, as opposed to a reason that takes into consideration wild guesses and player entitlement.
-
Name one reason why killers shouldn't be allowed to defend the hook.