Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
@ClamorVentus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2098419#Comment_2098419
Its sad to see my fellow comrades dont care for killers fun, its only their fun... i sometimes act like that but i still even feel bad for baby killers or those who were stomped on. :(
That is the nature of PvP: people play to win, no matter what. That's one of the reasons why I avoid it like the plague (DbD and other games I play with/against friends being the few exceptions).
-
It's a game, it's not like you're hurting them IRL. As long as you're not breaking the rules (and note that sandbagging can be against the rules if it's done repeatedly to the same person to harass them), play however you want.
-
@Zixology said:
You're not the only one. Unfortunately.
People are finally realizing that DS isn't a good method to reduce tunneling. You can still be tunneled right through it. You always could.
Yet, the devs and most fog whisperers actively promote that type of behavior.
EDIT: They promote it by saying it's not bannable since they consider ruining someone's match a "strategy". Giving this reason because someone is bound to ask.
They promote it by saying it's not bannable since they consider ruining someone's match a "strategy". Giving this reason because someone is bound to ask.
Your opponents are not trying to ruin your trial, they're trying to win. Your enjoyment doesn't factor into the equation in any way, it never has in any game.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2098142#Comment_2098142
Games are live though. And over here in the states it's pretty much understood that public places, you have a reduced expectation of privacy.
I mean, when I streamed MMO's I would cover the chatbox because I had access to non-public channels and I wanted to be courteous to those who inhabited those channels as I felt they should expect a certain level of privacy. If I hadn't had those more private channels, I wouldn't of bothered.
But still, if the law states we need to start covering gamer tags, we have the means to do so, I wouldn't mind doing it as most of us already have the tools to do so readily available. I just don't see the point right now as a tag gives the audience context as to what's happening on the screen.... which of the cloned claudettes is it that's doing the sick moves or whatnot.
Games are live though. And over here in the states it's pretty much understood that public places, you have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Therein lies the problem and is why I told OP to seek an attorney: laws differ from place to place. Hell, in the USA, laws can differ wildly from state to state, even though it's all technically the same country.
We're talking about the legal implications of a Canadian game (played on every continent), initially with a Swedish publisher, being streamed on platforms owned by USA corporations. The only people capable of assessing this are attorneys.
-
You should try bringing Decisive Strike, it's a good anti-tunnel perk.
-
Beginning to wonder if any of these innocuous terms are actually blocked or if there are some people spreading misinformation. I haven't seen any proof of these terms being blocked, just people complaining that they are and then someone else proving they're not.
-
I've heard this one before. If they are going to add bots, I say keep the DC penalty anyway. Bots are not the same as regular human players.
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2098271#Comment_2098271
I mean, I prefer shirted Myers. Mystery adds spice
HERESY!
-
As a survivor, the killer accused me of doing nothing the entire trial. Now, as some of you may know, I'm a stealth player. What happened was that he simply didn't see me the entire trial. In truth, I was responsible for the majority of unhooks, heals, and cleansed totems, and worked on gens as well.
As a killer, the survivors accused me of camping after I took a lap around the map as Doctor, found nobody, and went back to the hook (because it's obvious that's where they were going).
-
It's not, usually. There's proof of that on the forum. You must've activated the filter so many times that it started blocking more and more words.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
To me, gaming is no different than walking down the street and suddenly a news crew is there on the corner doing a piece. You can't expect privacy in a public place - and to me a match is a public place. So there's no ethical question in that area as far as I'm concerned.
As for anonymity, that's on the player and his tag. I don't know how it is on consoles, but here on Steam we can pretty much change our tags at will and thus our in-game names. We also have the ability to lock down our profiles from unwanted intrusions and people sending us messages. So if we don't wish to be bothered, we have it in our hands to do so. So again, no ethical questions for us here.
To me, gaming is no different than walking down the street and suddenly a news crew is there on the corner doing a piece. You can't expect privacy in a public place - and to me a match is a public place. So there's no ethical question in that area as far as I'm concerned.
Dunno where you're from, but I've seen more than enough news channels blur faces, license plates, and so on before airing their pieces. The only exception is live stuff, for obvious reasons.
As for anonymity, that's on the player and his tag.
The GDPR seems to say that that usernames constitute pseudo-anonymized personal information. It's not quite that clear-cut.
-
@Verconissp said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2097798#Comment_2097798
That's like every multiplayer game my guy..
At times. it's not possible to blur out Every single name due to how long or if it just shows up as a pure ***** in-game
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2097739#Comment_2097739
Twitch tbf wouldn't be a thing due to the fact that people would be Hard sueing Left and right. Sadly,
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2097678#Comment_2097678
I shouldn't have to when It's a multiplayer game,
The people that Witchhunt btw usually are perma-banned from said streamer's stream As it stands,
If it's a hacker, then yeah. Go after him and mass report the bastard for all i care,
But if it's a multiplayer game.. that Everyone, Including the Streamer that paid for it,
Shouldn't said streamer have the right to not Blur out said names when you can easily just change it?
(This logic is already thrown out for consoles but we all know how bad both steam and console players can be..)
Shouldn't said streamer have the right to not Blur out said names when you can easily just change it?
No, that's not how it works. If, legally speaking, there's justification for forcing streamers to blur names (and if someone is serious about this and wants to find out, I advise them to get off the forum and speak to an attorney), then it doesn't matter what the streamer paid for or didn't pay for. You can't break the law just because you're using a product you paid for.
-
@Pepsidot said:
If these players are necessary for the production of profitable content, I think it is only fair they receive a portion of the streamer's compensation.
This has to be bait. Could you imagine if this was the case? 99% of *gaming* content on platforms like YouTube and Twitch would just be people playing single player games. Thinking that this is in any way doable, practical or necessary is mind-boggling to me.
I don't watch that stuff, but I do make exclusively single-player LPs, and one of the reasons is precisely to avoid problems with other players. It's a lot more relaxed and has fewer potential pitfalls. If this becomes an actual concern, the market will adapt.
-
No, you can't.
Rule of thumb: you won't be banned in any game as long as you don't act like a dick, don't cheat, and don't use third-party programs to "assist" you in playing (bots, scripts, macros, and the like).
And before someone replies with "actually, you can use [insert thing I mentioned here] in games X, Y, and Z", look up what "rule of thumb" means.
-
That's how MMR is going to work, to some extent. Some skills are common to all killers, though, so I'm guessing the devs will take that into account.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
LoL apperently had this happen once and the short of it is that they are streaming only assets from the game.
Your username also is an asset of the game. You do not have full ownership of your account as it can get terminated if you violate the rules and thus nothing owned by you is being used in whatever stream.
Not 100% sure this is correct but that seems to be the gist of it
The GDPR states that a username is pseudo-anonymized information, so I wouldn't be so sure about that "your username is an asset of the game" claim.
-
A question as old as streaming itself.
If you think there's any legal basis for what you're saying, you should consult a lawyer.
-
Almost nothing on your list is an excuse to DC.
The gameplay things you mentioned (tunneling and whatnot) are just that: gameplay. They're allowed. In fact, DCing for these reasons is partly why the penalty is there to begin with.
Crashes are for the devs to fix. Sucks that you get a penalty, but if that weren't the case, then people who can make the game crash on purpose (can be done quite easily if you know what you're doing) would be able to DC.
Network issues on your end are something you need to solve. Network issues on the devs' end are for the devs to solve. Again, sucks that you get a penalty.
Toxicity, while a major pain in the ass, is not a reason to DC either.
If the penalty doesn't do anything, then why do you want it removed? If it makes no difference, then it shouldn't matter whether it's present or not.
-
@DevilsmamaJo Having re-read my comment, I see that it sounds a lot more hostile than was intended. I made an edit to explain my point better. Hopefully you didn't take it as hostile, but I don't like to come across as an ######### when it's not intended.
-
Did you miss the announcement that struggling is being replaced with occasional skill checks?
-
50? Doubtful. I'm willing to bet there are people in the 60+ crowd, they just stay quiet about it.
EDIT: Re-reading this comment, it seems like I'm complaining about OP's thread. I apologize, that was not the intention. I was referring to the fact that people in demographics that aren't associated with gaming (people over 30-35 and women, mostly) don't usually "out" themselves because a lot of gamers then mock those people.
-
@gilgamer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2092745#Comment_2092745
yeah but its not like a chat filter is new tech I see no reason why they'd have to build a whole new thing from the ground up
Have you seen an adaptive filter before, which gets more strict the more you abuse it? I haven't.
-
The brain can become addicted to virtually anything, no matter how innocuous it may seem, though some companies take it one step further to intentionally make their product as addictive as possible. Sugar, for instance, is quite addictive, and it's one of the reasons why it's in many foods.
-
It's mostly in jest.
-
No. Moonwalking proved that not being in a chase can't be used as a condition for anything that might be beneficial to killers (and/or harmful to survivors), because it's just too easy to exploit.
-
Teaching survivor to work on gens if the killer is camping is key. Heavily punishing unsafe unhooks (with a redefinition that includes getting hit, instead of just downed) should do it.
-
@gilgamer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2092646#Comment_2092646
Sure but I feel like there should at least be a whitelist of normal things that should never need to be censored, say for instance CHARACTERS IN YOUR OWN VIDEO GAME, maybe, for example.
Agreed, the filter is overly restrictive. Note that I just commented on the notion of testing an adaptive filter outside of a live environment.
-
@Satsui said:
Like, I don't understand how was it even released?
Is there no QA for DbD?
Something so fundamentally and obviously flawed... that's really unprofessional, sorry but I have to say that.
Such a filter (which appears to be adaptive in nature) can't really be tested outside of a live environment.
-
Because human ears aren't sensitive to every frequency in the same way, so it creates the illusion of one character being louder than another. You also have to take into account ambient sounds, which can mask other sounds.
In practice, they're all at the same volume.
-
@Pukenplag said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2091085#Comment_2091085
Then why would I run ds instead of any other obsession perk? I will get a use out of them, unlike ds.
Because the killer doesn't know who has DS (or if it's even supposed to be DS), so when you get tunneled, you'll wish you had it. However, if you feel I'm wrong, then just take other obsession perks.
-
@nursewannabe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2092280#Comment_2092280
Fair enough. Well then shame on you for that opinion >:((
[shrug]
I think our opinion would be more popular if people understood what stealth is about, but most seem to believe it's just about hiding in a corner doing nothing, which is indeed boring.
-
@nursewannabe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2092268#Comment_2092268
There are many people who enjoy this aspect of the game, and actual "death" squads play like this most of the game
...But we're a minority. Ours is the unpopular opinion (i.e.: the opinion held by a minority of players).
-
@Witas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090893#Comment_2090893
Pretty sure the 2nd part isn't an unpopular opinion lmao, that's literally how it is (maybe with the exception of deleting Urban Evasion, that propably is actually unpopular)
Indeed. The unpopular opinion would be mine:
Stealth is much more fun than looping.
-
@TicTac said:
It happened to me, too. But to be fair there are a lot of post which are in the wrong section. So its easy for the mods to make a mistake. Its only sad that they dont revert it and the discussion is then dead.
It's only "dead" because most people refuse to go to any section that isn't "General Discussions".
-
@EvilJoshy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2091353#Comment_2091353
Yes but now kids grow up watching Marvel movies and think "They say the best weapon is one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree"
You do remember that Tony was proven wrong in that very same film, right? And "kids nowadays" is such a tired trope, let it die already. It's been 5000 years since the beginning of recorded history and "kids nowadays" are still being blamed for all the evils in the world.
-
@EvilJoshy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090590#Comment_2090590
When you say MAD are you referring to Mutually Assured Destruction?
Indeed. Because it shows that something doesn't have to be used in order to achieve the purpose for which it was created.
-
@OopsAllHexes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2091266#Comment_2091266
So, a indirect answer. Alright, I suppose you feel my question is simplifying the issue.
The problem that comes from this stance is that this leads to letting Steam have a monopoly on the service, which is almost always a bad thing. Steam could make bad decisions and nobody would be able to go elsewhere because the services are either obscure or not welcome. I can see your point, but surely you can see some major issues that spring from getting mad when someone tries to offer a alternative to Steam?
(Not to mention that... well... "a ton of launchers" isn't exactly happening when it would have been only 3 major things: Steam, Epic Games and (previously) Discord. I know that stuff like the Blizzard launcher exists but that's only for their specific companies. I can see your point though.)
So, a indirect answer. Alright, I suppose you feel my question is simplifying the issue.
No, I felt it was a loaded question.
The problem that comes from this stance is that this leads to letting Steam have a monopoly on the service, which is almost always a bad thing. Steam could make bad decisions and nobody would be able to go elsewhere because the services are either obscure or not welcome. I can see your point, but surely you can see some major issues that spring from getting mad when someone tries to offer a alternative to Steam?
If Steam became the worse store, people would flock to the alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives know they're worse, but rather than try to improve themselves, they decided to fracture the PC platform and offering "exclusive" content. The same thing is happening with streaming services.
(Not to mention that... well... "a ton of launchers" isn't exactly happening when it would have been only 3 major things: Steam, Epic Games and (previously) Discord. I know that stuff like the Blizzard launcher exists but that's only for their specific companies. I can see your point though.)
- Steam
- EGS
- Blizzard
- Origin
- Rockstar
- GOG
- Bethesda
- Ubisoft
That's just off the top of my head and doesn't even include all the games and publishers that demand you sign up to their websites in order to get the full content you paid for.
-
@OopsAllHexes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2091122#Comment_2091122
Some of your takes, Orion...
I wish to ask you a honest question: Do you think competition is a bad thing? Not trying to be mean or snarky, just a question.
I think fracturing the PC platform and forcing people to download a ton of launchers/stores/whatever just to be able to play the stuff they paid for is bad.
-
Doubtful.
-
@Pizzaman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090903#Comment_2090903
"Last Year" started with a Discord exclusive release. What could possibly go wrong?
The Devs basically did not communicate with their community.
There was almost 1 year of time between the announcement that the game would be coming to Steam and the game actually coming to steam. During that time, they went completely radio silent.
And let's not talk about the last resort release of another title called "Last Year: The Nightmare".
Last Year was doomed from the very beginning. The game looked great though. Still lot's of bad management decisions ensured a really bad start and limited it's potential growth. Covid had nothing to do with it's downfall (yes, I know, we were told that there was a potential "deal" on it's way that could have "saved" LY .... spoileralert: it's highly unlikely that such a deal would have been signed anyway, cause you don't try to catch a falling knife).
I was actually curious about Last Year, but then they had to launch it on Discord, of all places. They might as well have sold it at a "worldwide" exclusive event (that's only available in most of the USA and two or three cities outside of it, like pretty much all "worldwide" events).
I don't understand why publishers are trying to reinvent the wheel here. Steam works, stop trying to fracture the platform. Or, if you're going to move to a new store and be dicks to PC players, make sure it's actually as good as (or better) than Steam.
-
@NekoGamerX said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2091045#Comment_2091045
I play both side why should survivor have a perk that may never get used just have obsession in game just to scare the killer in to think we have ds no killer perk where we use it just so survivors think we have it.
either put obsession in ever match or make a weaker DS but does the same thing basekit because no obsession = easy mode
because after you kill the first survivor by tunnel one poor soul the other 3 playing get hurt as well making it very easy match for the killer
and the easy fix would be obsession ever match because if you never tunnel anyway it wont hurt you.
I play both side why should survivor have a perk that may never get used just have obsession in game just to scare the killer in to think we have ds no killer perk where we use it just so survivors think we have it.
Because if the point of DS is to prevent tunneling and having an obsession prevents tunneling, then DS has achieved its purpose, even if you never get to stun the killer. Read my post about human behavior and the fact that humans change tactics.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090810#Comment_2090810
It's an incredibly lazy strategy. Like a 4 man swf with 4 BnP. They're almost certainly going to win, but whether they are better at the game is debatable at best.
It's an incredibly lazy strategy.
In terms of chases, it's almost no different from chasing multiple survivors. The main difference is that you're starting a chase with someone who's already injured. Regardless, "lazy" is just another word for "optimal", at least in this situation. Good players trying to win make optimal plays.
-
@NekoGamerX said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090768#Comment_2090768
then make DS base kit fine all fixed.
No? Why should you have the benefit of a perk without using it?
-
Just for the record, this is not a "paradox", in any sense of the word. It's a basic fact that human behavior is altered by external conditions.
If a survivor knows the killer has Lightborn, for example, they'll stop trying to blind the killer. Does that mean Lightborn becomes useless? No, it means Lightborn accomplished its goal of preventing blinds.
This is how games work. You adapt to what your opponent is using. There's no "paradox", it's just some people need to play more strategy games with human opponents. You're not playing against AI, you're playing against sentient beings that can and will change tactics depending on what you do, to try to get the upper hand.
-
Nurse is the most fun killer to go up against.
-
@ProfoundEnding said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090837#Comment_2090837
I'm just saying I don't think it was a flop solely because of it's game design. If there hadn't been a lawsuit I genuinely belive the game would still be alive and receiving content to this day. We were just about to get the Grendal map and Jason X right before the lawsuit occurred.
Again, 70% of the players left in two months. The lawsuit came a year after that. You can check the data yourself.
Could the game still be receiving new content to this day, if not for the lawsuit? Maybe. However, there's no denying that the majority of players grew bored with the game almost immediately, long before the lawsuit even became relevant.
-
@ProfoundEnding said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090820#Comment_2090820
The game was nearly unplayable in that time. It was infested with dozens of bugs. That eventually did get better as time went on. But it was never perfect. A lot of people definitely gave up on it very quickly due to those bugs.
Yes, that's what I said, it was a flop. And it wasn't because of any lawsuit, it was because the product was inferior.
-
@Pepsidot said:
It's a shame F13 has an on going lawsuit because I found it quite fun to play on occasion.
It has its problems, but I still sinked 100+ hours into it for a few months after release. Now, that's nothing compared to my hours in dbd but I honestly believe I'd have at least a few hundred hours by this point if it wasn't for the lawsuit stopping new content and deterring the Devs from actually improving the game.
F13th lost 70% of its player base in 2 months, a year before the lawsuit. It was a flop, completely unrelated to the lawsuit.
-
@adirgeforthedead said:
The issue here is that DS is a band-aid solution for an issue in the mechanics of the game. DS by itself doesn't stop or prevent tunnelling, it merely gives you 60 additional seconds of gameplay (aka taking your time to admire the floor tiles) which is why I never use it if the Killer wants to tunnel me, they are objectively bad and only want to make the game as quick and insufferable for me as a Survivor.
A fellow commentor mentioned it that they've gotten to red ranks without tunnelling, I have only gotten to green ranks, but I know a fair amount of players that have managed to reach red ranks without taking advantage of issues with mechanics. The paradox itself here is that we shouldn't need to waste a perk slot to resolve an issue with game design, but until we get an actual solution for this... we will have to deal with tunnelling and some Killers thinking they are good because they tunnelled off of hook.
if the Killer wants to tunnel me, they are objectively bad and only want to make the game as quick and insufferable for me as a Survivor.
Your opponent is not bad for winning with a certain strategy. Quite the opposite, in fact. Can you name one game where winning makes you worse at the game than the guy who lost?
-
No. This is the same logic behind "millennials are killing industry X", which is just false.
Consumers are not to blame when a business fails to attract customers. That is the true meaning of "the customer is always right"; it means that if your business can't attract customers, it's your own fault for selling an unwanted (or inferior) product.