Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MusicNerd_TC said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675145#Comment_1675145
Being a vet doesn't make your opinion any more valid, this game isn't very hard, and only takes a few hundred hours to understand, I've been here since 2018, which is around the time this game released on console, and it isn't hard at all.
It's not a matter of opinion, I was literally just stating DbD history (y'know, objective facts) and had one person constantly doubt me despite others saying I was right and even offer up evidence and another say I should "learn" DbD history from someone who wasn't even there to begin with.
-
@Khar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675144#Comment_1675144
Sucks that us vets have to bend over backwards to get these new bloods to believe us, eh?
Indeed.
@MusicNerd_TC said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675144#Comment_1675144
How do you know he wasn't there for the changes?
Because we've had this conversation before.
-
@Tactless_Ninja said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675126#Comment_1675126
I've never seen that.
That's bullshit. Really? That goes against the whole purpose of the perk.
Nerf survivors.
Indeed, it is bullshit, but that's how it works. There's no real reason for it to even work like that because it literally only comes into play if survivors gen tap.
@azame said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674602#Comment_1674602
Orion you make good points sometimes but it isnt favoritism. You should learn to quit with the constant no when someone tells you something and learn.
The animation cut alot of DS's time for the survivors to escape. This was obvious when it showed how long you had til DS was over in the bottom right.
It remained 5 seconds because it was enough time for survivors to escape. Not favoritism simple balance.
You're literally telling me, the guy who was there, witnessed the changes, and heard the devs' justifications, to "learn" from someone who wasn't.
I think I'm going to stick with believing what actually happened, seeing as how I witnessed it.
-
@Tactless_Ninja said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675025#Comment_1675025
A quick tap would make the gen explode. Staying to hit the skillcheck takes the same amount of time it would to kick the gen.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675026#Comment_1675026
6 seconds? Who's exaggerating now? It's 2 seconds, 3 seconds tops. And they still need to stop a second to get the animation in. That can be a free hit if they're being cocky.
A gimmick that directly tackles your problem. Sorry you don't turn off the tap when the water in your bathroom is spilling everywhere and that stabby feeling you get when you poke your hand with a fork at dinner doesn't go away when you yell at it.
A quick tap would make the gen explode.
Overcharge skill checks can be hit while moving.
-
@IshinSolarc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1675080#Comment_1675080
Doesn't it just breaks the first part of the mechanic?
- After applying a Deep Wound with your Feral Frenzy to a survivor, he gets 30% of Hidden Wound meter.
No, I meant as a replacement to the passive application mentioned here:
For each second out of chase while Deep Wounded, a survivor gets of Hidden Wound meter. (even while mending)
-
This is very interesting indeed, but I would suggest the following change:
- Hidden Wound only applies if you're affected by Deep Wound while the timer is going down. With this mechanic, survivors will likely be trying to group up so they can heal each other after Mending. If Hidden Wound is applied regardless, this is essentially punishing them for trying to counter Hidden Wound.
-
@BaldursGate2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674481#Comment_1674481
True, only dead hard and sprintburst are used in every game. Lithe and BL are very rare.
You're both missing the fact that you don't play at every rank or on every platform.
-
Who actually says that only killers or survivors are toxic?
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674937#Comment_1674937
Thank you for providing a source.
My guess is that they reverted the change, like I said for the milionth time, for balance reasons. Even the patch notes state that "Of those 2.8 seconds the survivor will get a head start of ~ 2.28 seconds which makes escaping possible but much harder.". Much harder, or in other words, nearly impossible. 5 seconds is ideal, and Enduring would just be a perk that enabled tunneling even more. Look at what happened during the recent DS bug.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674938#Comment_1674938
I know he doesn't, and I'm not forcing anyone to find anything. I was just saying I don't need to believe him if he doesn't have a source.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674947#Comment_1674947
Killers have been buffed tons of times in the previous years. Is that bias? No - it's balancing. Same goes for survivors.
My guess is that they reverted the change, like I said for the milionth time, for balance reasons.
No change was reverted, that's the problem. DS stayed at 5 seconds even though it was explicitly buffed because of how Enduring affected it. Why don't you take the devs at their word? Just admit you were wrong and move on, it's not a big deal.
Killers have been buffed tons of times in the previous years. Is that bias? No - it's balancing. Same goes for survivors.
I didn't bring up the number of nerfs, so I'm not sure why you are.
-
@not_Queef said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674544#Comment_1674544
Why start the timeline when DS was released? Did you even read the post you were quoting?
Why not start the timeline when DS was released if I'm pointing out how DS was buffed to account for Enduring, then Enduring was nerfed while DS remained the same?
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674912#Comment_1674912
If you know which gens are being worked on, you can apply pressure and nullify all progress on them. The regression speed is huge, and you don't have to waste time to kick them. If you hook/down someone, a survivor doing gens has to make a difficult choice - keep working on the gen and possibly let their teammate down, or help them and leave the gen to regress. Old ruin just made the gens speeds inconsistently longer. People complained because new ruin actually needs some input from the killer side
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674920#Comment_1674920
Sorry to say this, but I think you are the one who thinks that there is a big "dev bias" conspiracy. If you said the devs said what you said, then I want to see the exact source. If you can't provide, too bad. I won't believe you...
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just know that the devs have, in many instances, shown bias toward survivors.
-
@Endstille said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674898#Comment_1674898
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/55352/patch-notes-2-6-3-ash-vs-evil-dead
deal with it
BALANCE:
Changed the Decisive Strike stun time to 5 seconds, with the Survivor being free to move after 1 second.
The Enduring perk now affects Decisive Strike's stun.
With feedback from the PTB and Live, we have changed the Decisive Strike stun time to 5 seconds, with the Survivor being free to move after 1 second. This should allow for the survivor to have ~ 4 seconds at a base to try and escape the killer after the stun is successful. When Enduring is used, the stun will be reduced to ~2.8 seconds. Of those 2.8 seconds the survivor will get a head start of ~ 2.28 seconds which makes escaping possible but much harder.
Thank you. Seriously, why would multiple people confirm what I've said while zero denied it if I was lying? People on the Internet love to prove others wrong.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674868#Comment_1674868
Well I can't take your word for granted if you can't provide a source. I might as well say I am secretly the CEO of BHVR. Would you believe me?
And if you think balancing the game is "bias", because, like I explained, DS needs a 5 second stun to work properly, then I'm glad you're not a game developer..
I can show you the thread I opened in 2019, demanding that DS go back to 3 seconds at the same time as Enduring was nerfed, unless you think I opened the thread for just such an occasion and that everyone who replied in it, as well as everyone who's confirmed what I've said in this thread, are all in on a big conspiracy to trick you.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674860#Comment_1674860
Oh yeah, Ruin is so strong, that survivors don´t even bother searching for it.
In 3/4 trials I don't even know it's in play until I start my second generator. The other 1/4 are when the killer finds me first. That's how impactful it is.
EDIT: I should say, though, that we (survivors) still search for it because when we need to unhook, heal, whatever, we don't want the generators to regress too much.
-
Will the refunds come out of your pocket?
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674816#Comment_1674816
You can never be sure without a source. And even then, like I said, this was done for balancing and consistency reasons, not because the devs favor one side or another.
You can be sure if you were there. Also, you're trying to retroactively excuse this display of bias by imposing your reasoning onto an action that the devs themselves justified in a different way. That's not gonna work.
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674003#Comment_1674003
And yet killers rarely tunnel these days and DS is still meta. Funny that.
People don't run second chances because of mean nasty killers, they run them because they are strong. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as people recognise what they are doing. The problem is the excuse of "it's all the other side's fault," which this thread seems to be drenched in, which creates the whole "it's your fault that I am immortal by jumping in a locker and you should be ashamed of yourself" situation.
Thank you.
-
It helps prevent unsafe unhooks, which is why some people want it gone. They want to be able to unhook in the killer's face without any consequence, that's all.
-
@xenotimebong said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674619#Comment_1674619
A stranger on a forum doesn’t know you, what you’ve lived through, whether you’re a vet, how good your memory is, and whether you have any biases or reasons to lie. They have no reason to believe something just because you say so.
Except they weren't questioning whether I was a vet or not, they were questioning whether I was telling the truth about what happened.
@valvarez4 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674544#Comment_1674544
This is not the most blatant display of favoritism. It was MoM nerf.
MoM is a perk that should have never been released in its original state. Everyone could see it was broken.
-
@CashelP14 said:
Don't make up lies. If the devs favoured survivors words more than killers then:
- Mori's would already have been removed.
- Spirit, Freddy, Doctor and Nurse would've been nerfed into the ground.
- NOED would've been nerfed.
- Every nerf they've done in the last year (big maps, instaheals and in the future keys) wouldn't have happened.
- Iridescent Head would've been nerfed.
- I've personally said enough about how I hate Hag that they probably would've nerfed her.
- Wouldn't get matched with potato teammates every game.
No more needs to be said.
- Moris have been nerfed. They didn't require a hook at all when the game was released.
- Nurse has been nerfed a few times. She used to have 3 blinks, then 2, and now her blinks are on a timer.
- NOED has been nerfed a few times. It used to be infinite, then lasted for 2 minutes, and is now a Hex perk.
- Matchmaking is a coding issue, not related to balance. Everyone suffers from bad matchmaking.
-
A little math to really emphasize how bad the perk is...
When a survivor is hit, their speed is increased to 6 m/s for 2 seconds, meaning they can cover 12 meters. That leaves a minimum 4 meters of "effective" range, taking into account the fact that survivors may not be running in a straight line.
Let's say survivors only managed to get 8 meters away from their initial hit area, meaning they wasted a third of the on-hit burst. They will still need to cover another 8 meters, which is twice the minimum effective range. Now, survivors run at 4 m/s by default, so to cover 8 meters they will need to run for 2 seconds, which is about the same (if not exactly the same) as the hit cooldown for killers.
-
This would completely destroy the game's balance while also preventing certain characters from equipping certain perks.
David? Can't use anything to heal yourself with.
Hag? Can't use good Hex perks because there aren't enough totems.
-
@xenotimebong said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674602#Comment_1674602
Why is it sad? People should be sceptical if there’s no proof, a “veteran” saying something doesn’t mean it’s true. People blindly believing everything they’re told is not a good thing.
I mean, I remember the devs saying it too so I believe you, but that doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable for someone to doubt it. People should question more.
I don't think it's "blindly believing" when we literally lived through it and heard what was said. At best, the "blindly believing" part would be believing that I'm a veteran to begin with, which I think would be reasonable to question in the majority cases.
-
That's for Enduring, yes, which starts at 40:00. Now if you could find the one about the DS buff...
It's sad that veterans aren't believed when we lived through these changes, but I guess that's in fashion nowadays.
-
@ABannedCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674567#Comment_1674567
Trapper is still gargabe, unless you consider the resetting as such a huge buff.
I think it gives him a bigger advantage with Hex perks than any other killer.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674559#Comment_1674559
Can you provide a source?
And my point still stands. 5 seconds is fully appropriate for DS.
No, I don't know which stream it was.
Your point does not stand. Those were the devs' words, their justifications for the DS buff and Enduring nerf. It was a blatant display of favoritism, nothing more.
It's the little things like this that make people believe the devs favor survivors, not the (completely irrelevant) number of nerfs.
-
@ABannedCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674554#Comment_1674554
*Laughs in Trapper*
Honestly, I didn't even think of Trapper at the time because he was still garbage.
-
@voorheesgt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/197323/lithe-is-more-used-than-ds-said-the-devs
I think the key word they can leverage to say it's truth is "used"... If you think about it if 4 survivors bring DS it will get USED a maximum of 4 times. Lithe can be USED many times by just one survivor, meaning if 4 were to have lithe it would be used a dozen or more times...
Tricky politician talk goes a long way in avoiding telling a straight truth.
Or people just don't understand that "used" refers to every rank in every platform and that the few dozen games they play at rank X on platform Y don't reflect the millions that are played across every rank and every platform.
-
@ToxicMyers said:
There are some people who play this game who won't know who tf he is and why he is scary, and would think its just a random killer, myself included
Honestly, I thought it was gonna be the old guy from Incredibles 2.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674544#Comment_1674544
Where is your proof for point 3?
Besides, with or without old enduring, 3 seconds was way too little. 5 seconds is the fully appopriate duration of the stun, considering you waste around 1 second of the stun as a survivor when the drop animation is happening. This lets the perk work as it was intended and lets you get some distance instead of getting downed 5 seconds after using it.
Simple balancing. No favoritism.
The proof is the devs' literal justification for buffing DS. I'm taking them at their word.
-
@ABannedCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674536#Comment_1674536
Well, I hope you are right. I just wish this information was more publicily available. Its kind of frustrating when you have a good suggestion that is supported by alot of people, and you dont know if the developers are in the process of adding it or abandoned the idea already, because its not possible to implement in a timely fashion.
All I know is that multiple people, myself included, have reported that their ideas have been implemented in one form or another. So while the devs may not implement our ideas exactly as we wrote them (which is fine, IMO, they can think for themselves), they do take notice of them.
For example, I once suggested a totem fix wherein totems would only spawn in specific areas, obvious to everyone, but the totems themselves would be hidden from direct line of sight, requiring survivors to walk into dead-ends and such, which would be dangerous for them. Sound familiar?
-
All of them. You cannot see a killer with Kindred - or any other aura-reading - if they are Undetectable.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674538#Comment_1674538
At the time when enduring came out, the only way to stun the killer was to throw a pallet at him. The devs only had pallet stuns in mind when they were creating the perk. DS came later, and no wonder they removed the enduring effect on it after some time - for consistency reasons. This is just simple balancing, not favoring in any way.
Wrong. Here's the timeline, starting with when DS was released:
- DS released.
- DS buffed and nerfed a few times, ending with the current version, but with a 3-second stun.
- DS buffed to 5 seconds explicitly because it was too weak with Enduring affecting it.
- Enduring nerfed to no longer affect stun perks.
- DS remains at 5 seconds.
This, to me, was the most blatant display of favoritism in recent DbD years (not that there are many of them).
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
You guys are also forgetting that mori spamming, especially with Freddy, could cause a ######### SEIZURE in some cases. It was removed not only because it could hold the game hostage but because some people, definitely one confirmed case on the forums a while back, were being hospitalised.
It's not because of dev bias. It's because of hostage situations and hospital trips.
Flashlight clicking can definitely do that as well. It's literally the most common way to cause seizures on a person susceptible to them.
-
@MrLimonka said:
Can you provide ANY examples where BHVR favored survivors? Any at all?
The devs have been constantly balancing the game, and now killers have a have a much higher chance of winning compared to previous years, where you could have 2 pallets at the same loop, infinites, exhaustion recovering mid-chase.. but you still complain about BHVR favoring survivors? In my eyes, there have been more killer buffs than survivor buffs.
DS and Enduring. The number of buffs and nerfs is irrelevant if there's a big gap between them.
-
@ABannedCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674524#Comment_1674524
Yet, I barely see them responding to suggestions. Something simple as "Yes, thats a valid concern, I will bring it forward to our development team", or "No, we have considered that suggestion, and decided against because: [Enter reason here]".
The only memeber of the team I see being active regularily is KhaineGB in the Technical Issues subforum. And from what I see, they are actually helping people there.
As I understand it, all the suggestion and feedback threads are forwarded to the devs, because it's not up to them to decide whether our concerns are valid or not.
However, having them reply to each one is just not going to happen, especially when people expect instant implementation or otherwise think up completely arbitrary timelines for when they think their ideas/complaints should have been implemented/addressed.
Furthermore, the devs could get a better idea while attempting to implement what someone suggested, or even realize that the suggestion is unworkable, prompting a shitstorm from people who don't understand that projects change and can't accept that their ideas are not perfect.
Bottom line, "Feedback and Suggestions" is where you want to put feedback and suggestions if you want the devs to notice it. If you just want forumgoers to notice it, then by all means, put it on "General Discussions".
-
@ABannedCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1674512#Comment_1674512
Well, if the forum mods and community managers were actually worth their money, they would go to https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussions and chime through all kinds of discussion to determine the players' frustrations and wishes.
That's literally what this section is for, to say what our frustrations and wishes are, all in one place so they're easier to find and push to the devs.
-
@MrsPiggyIsSoSneaky said:
Of course, this post gets edited by some mod and gets put into the suggestion and feedback, when really, this post is just a general statement. BHVR this post in not a suggestion at all, its more like fix your mistake because you can't seem to get POV right for a killer that is TALLER THAN SURVIVORS.
In other words, it's feedback. And if you want BHVR to notice, the Feedback and Suggestions section is where it should be. Would you rather get attention from forumgoers with no influence over the game, or from the devs?
-
@StevePerryPsychOut said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673130#Comment_1673130
Okay, I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but did you even read the other responses? You keep making the same generalized arguments without responding to criticisms of your arguments directly. Whereas I have been very careful to address your arguments directly. What perks do survivors have to deal with a Leatherface revving a chainsaw next to a survivor (outside of Kindred to straight up ignore the poor survivor being camped)? Should the game be balanced around the assumption that all players will either be SWF or using 1 specific perk? If not then what if 3 soloQ players don't have it? People often throw around 4 minutes as the time it takes for gens to get done in a quick game. Assuming all 3 players take an additional 30-40 seconds on average to check if killer is camping + time to open exit gate that leaves time for the killer to get 2-3 kills, for no more effort than downing 3 people once and standing still and watching them die. Against a SWF, the unstoppable boogeyman of killer mains, that still leaves a consistent 1-2k for absolute minimal effort. A soloQ survivor would have have to put in an exponential amount more effort to ensure similar results, and could not guarantee it in the same manner a camping killer could.
Yes, I did. What you don't get is that I'm not making any arguments, I am telling you what actually happened when these ideas were tried. Not an idealized scenario, not even a hypothetical scenario, but the very real scenario that happened.
@MasterofSFL said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673155#Comment_1673155
The lose-lose situation was caused by the permanent reduction in the death progression due to distance being the only qualifier for the killer. It's that binary "Is the killer within range: Yes or No" that makes it profitable for a survivor to show up and force the killer to chase, as now the killer must choose to give up a hook and chase, leave and hope to find the other 2 survivors or chase and risk gens being completed.
Without that binary and instead using a true/false, you instead get in that exact scenario:
"Is the Hooked Survivor:
- Within the terror radius: True
- Within 10m of the killer: True
And
Is the Killer:
- Currently in Chase: True"
With that change, the survivors can't abuse the mechanism by just showing up, there is no lose-lose for the killer. The moment a survivor shows up and taunts a chase, Entity's Displeasure disappears. It would be no different than things are today when a survivor taunts a killer to give chase, the timer would still be the same, the survivor would still be delaying the killer on purpose. It's only when the killer camps and no survivors show up does Entity's Displeasure activate. So where does the abuse exist in this framework?
Survivors showed up without triggering the chase conditions. That's where the abuse lies. They don't have to trigger the chase conditions if they don't want to since one of the conditions is literally that they're sprinting within the killer's line of sight and within a certain distance from the killer. Your solution does not and cannot account for that.
@StevePerryPsychOut said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673155#Comment_1673155
That's very general, and is therefore barely an argument, can you state how survivors would abuse his proposed fix specifically?
See above, this is not an argument, it is me telling you what happened. I'm not going to reply here again unless I get bored, but anyone who's been here a while can tell you that this is the same idea that everyone always suggests and has been objectively proven to be a bad idea.
-
@MasterofSFL said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673055#Comment_1673055
"new mechanic:
- slowed-down the Entity progression on the Hook if the Killer remained within a certain proximity of it.
It was their first attempt to create and implement an anti-camping mechanic. Since the new Mechanic got abused too heavily by Survivors purposefully kiting the Killer around their hooked teammate, the Developers disabled the Mechanic again."
So, like I thought, the survivors were just keeping the Killer within range of the hooked survivors, forcing a reduced death progression. Unless someone can show me the PBE notes at the time, it seems that there was only a distance requirement: In-Chase and Terror Radius were not part of this iteration. Specifically why I placed terror-radius and not in an active chase was for that very reason, if distance is the only requirement then it's a given it's going to be abused. I feel that the missing components in that kind of anti-camping mechanism are what I originally put forth, with some additional modifiers:
Entity's Displeasure: Hooked Survivors while within your terror radius and 10m of you have reduced death progression shortly after being hooked, while you're not in chase. Entity's Displeasure Is deactivated upon entering a chase, Entity's Displeasure will reactivate after spending a total of 10 seconds near a hooked survivor after exiting a chase. Entity's Displeasure is not in effect when two or more survivors are on hook or during End-Game Collapse.
This solves for the looping/kiting/stalling of survivors, which now cannot endlessly kite the killer around and force a permanent reduction in the death timer It keeps killers from standing directly near a single hooked survivor, but rewards getting at least two hooks then camping. It also allows for forcible plays end-game, catching a survivor and forcing the remaining survivors to make a choice. It keeps open the ability for stealth power/perk killers to utilize Bait & Switch strategies without punishment.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673078#Comment_1673078
Having just went through both the PBE and Patch Notes for the game, I only found one iteration of anti-camping popping up in the first PBE like Orion stated. That version simply made it so the killer had to be within a certain distance and nothing else. My version places several conditions, all of which combined are what constitutes blatant camping. The only abuse this could cause would be survivors actively get someone thrown on a hook and then ignore them until End-game collapse. However, that all depends on whether or not a killer is going to actively camp to begin with and the whole point is to punish the activity.
And they were also just showing up to force the killer into a lose/lose situation, like I said. I should know, I was there.
Regardless, no tweaks can solve the main issue this suggestion had, which is that survivors could (and did) easily abuse it.
-
Welcome to PvP.
Also, "back in the day" it was the same, especially with infinite vaults, infinite loops, and other broken stuff.
-
What's wrong with it?
-
@StevePerryPsychOut said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673055#Comment_1673055
Well the current camping meta is a lose-lose for the opposite side assuming no voice coms. Either all survivor players check if killer is camping which will probably cede a 3k to the camping killer, or assume the killer is camping which could create a meta of 1 hook deaths, which is absurd. Killer is allowed infinite camping with no recourse from survivors if he chooses not to chase, which many many would argue is a failure.
Edit: C'mon BHVR, just because you shove this to the page where this won't be seen doesn't mean this doesn't matter. Kinda sad how you did that honestly :|
Survivors have perks to deal with this scenario and can rush gens, but they choose not to. Even with Kindred clearly showing a camper, survivors will often try to unhook, which is just objectively a bad decision. When they rush gens, however, killers get 1, maybe 2 kills and depip.
Also, the feedback section is where threads go if you want the devs to notice them. If you want the attention of people who can't do anything about this problem, then General is what you want. If you want someone to read this who can actually do something about it, then Feedback is the right place.
-
@LapisInfernalis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671345#Comment_1671345
Really?
I know I've got luxury here in Germany with the DBD server being right here in Frankfurt (the other is in London), but is it really that bad for you? What is your average ping? I get around 30-50ms and I dodge the lobby if it's over 100ms because of hit detection etc.
I'm in Europe, I just know the USA's internet is quite poor because of my friends in the USA who always complain about low speeds when you ask them about their service.
A quick Google search reveals that, according to Ookla, the average download speed in the USA in 2018 was slightly under 100 Mbps. In my country, you literally cannot get a slower download speed than 100 Mbps, barring places with poor infrastructure where you will likely suffer from a poor connection (although that's the same everywhere, including the USA).
According to Speedtest.net they've since beefed up a bit, now sitting at a little under 160 Mbps, but that doesn't take into account the quality of the service (which, again, is something my friends complain about). I've upgraded to 500 Mbps download speed recently and pay less than they do for 200 Mbps (if my sources are to be believed). Hell, I could get 1 Gbps for a little more than what they pay for 200 Mbps, but I feel that's overkill.
-
@MasterofSFL said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672873#Comment_1672873
If you have the specific patch, I'd like to read it. The only way I can think this would be abusable (the past iteration) would be that the distance was too high and that survivors would loop in and out of chase just outside the range necessary for them to deactivate the mechanism, while keeping the killer within it, so that the hooked survivor was in a permanent state of reduced death progression. That's solved by having a deactivation timer that spans further than the end of a chase/reactivation timer of being within range for an accumulated amount of time and a smaller distance (If too large to begin with).
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672960#Comment_1672960
I know this may come as a shock to you, but I'm not an idiot and do the generators the moment I figure out the killer is blatantly camping. Also, unless I'm SFW (and I only play with either my wife or my buddy), there's no way of conveying this to any of the other survivors, so yes, I will certainly tell you that within 2 minutes I cannot do 3-4 gens by myself. The post isn't a "wah, this sucks" complaint, it's about the toxic nature of blatant camping, from a gameplay, thematic and player experience view: killers who don't actively chase turn games into Press M1 and Walk Simulators (literally your response); Players who are camped gain nothing for their 2 minutes of agony.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672940#Comment_1672940
This is effectively the entire issue summed in one paragraph. The "Optimized" method of playing DbD is a 4 man survivor team, with everyone carrying specific perks, items and making specific callouts, all within a VoiP. Every counter to the OP and camping issue (aside from one) has been "Just work with your team/It's dangerous to go alone, Take This!" Blatant camping punishes Solo survivors, it does nothing to SWF. SWF, fully optimized, enrages killers and makes the killer demographic have to goto extremes to deal with them (Devour Hope+Mori+One Hit Down Killer). These killers now face the Solo survivors and still camp, but now down you immediately and/or kill you out of nowhere. The rebuttal cannot simply be "Play better and with these perks 24/7."
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672882#Comment_1672882
It is abusable if not implemented correctly, that's why I worded it as I did. The mechanism has to actually punish blatant camping, not simply being within a general range.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672740#Comment_1672740
While I don't know how BHVR codes it's engine, I can't imagine them having an issue with making a more oval/oblique bubble for distance.
They didn't have to loop (although they did). Merely showing up forced the killer into a lose/lose situation (let the survivor be unhooked or let all gens be repaired), which is absurd. They also tried having the first hook stage be infinite (though self-unhooking still progressed it by the normal amount), which failed.
Unfortunately, as this was the very first PTB, back in 2016, I've no idea where to find official patch notes. Best I can do is the wiki.
-
@StevePerryPsychOut said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672886#Comment_1672886
This only exacerbates the issue with the gulf between power of solo survivors and SWF. 3 solo survivors have no way to know is a killer is camping if he is just outside of kindred range, or if the individual survivors are not running kindred. SoloQ is already seriously suffering in the current state of the game, and camping doesn't really hurt a competent SWF, which according to most killer stans is what kills the game for them. So why does camping need to be a viable strategy when it's just a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" strategy?
Use Kindred. Learn (and teach others) the M1 code (spamming M1 on the hook=camper).
Camping is only a viable strategy if survivors let it. Killers should not be punished because survivors make mistakes.
-
@ILoveDemo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672575#Comment_1672575
Survivors got so many nerfs how should they be in the Power role?
Here's a very exaggerated example of why "survivors got many nerfs" is not relevant.
Imagine survivors had a perk that increased their movement and generator repair speeds by 100% and made them transparent. Killers, meanwhile, have a perk that gives permanent aura-reading and insta-downs. The survivor perk is just overwhelmingly more powerful, because no killer can move fast enough to catch them.
The survivor perk gets nerfed 51 times. The first time, the survivors are no longer transparent. The other 50 times, the percentage is reduced by exactly 1%, so the end result after 50 nerfs is that they move and repair 50% faster.
The killer perk gets nerfed twice. The first time it removes the insta-downs, the second time it replaces the aura-reading with making scratch marks brighter.
Survivors got 51 nerfs, whereas killers were only nerfed twice, but survivors are still undoubtedly more powerful because their nerfs were utterly irrelevant.
-
@Pawcelot said:
It have already been tried and abused, so it was cut out.
People need to learn that if you're gonna have a better impact on people's playstyles if you reward them for playing the way you want, instead of punishing them for not.
I mean, even if you made it so that campers got literally no points whatsoever, depipped and got banned for 24 hours for camping.. some still would, because its a mentality. A state of mind.
It's not because it's a mentality, it's because survivors reward camping. As a killer, why wouldn't you just sit tight and wait for survivors to stop all progression while you continue yours? If your opponent is making a critical error, you don't correct them or make one yourself "for fairness" or because "it's not fun", you take advantage of it.
-
@EuphoricBliss35 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671345#Comment_1671345
So, you believe if there were no servers, they’d be able to do crossplay?
I'm not that tech-savvy, but I don't see why consoles shouldn't be able to handle a P2P connection just like PCs can.
-
@MasterofSFL said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672342#Comment_1672342
"If the excuse to not address it is going to be "Only some killer's can reliably camp/Bring this special perk," then it really just amounts to saying nothing in response. Not every player has X/Y/Z perk and just because some killers can execute a toxic method of playing a game doesn't mean that method should go unaddressed. The game is asymmetrical, with survivors being on the none-low end of information, the expectation for survivors to predict and combat something through their perks to stop one particular (toxic/antithetical) kind of play isn't a legitimate expectation. Killers being on the move and making active plays however is a reasonable expectation, unless they already setup a build to ambush hooked survivors."
Now, pardner, I must inform you the folly of assuming one's circumstances, as you can always fabricate the notion of your advantage. Translated: You can always just say "well, if you had just brought X/Y/Z, you'd have been able to deal with A/B/C, duh," forgetting that survivors neither know the killer or anything about the player themselves before jumping into a game. You're literally asking people to have the foresight to buy and level the right survivors, then build the perfect build with those perks to counter a specific playstyle with precision.
As an aside, an ambush is by definition a surprise attack from a concealed position. The fact that you're blatantly visible with a massive terror radius means it's not a Bait & Ambush, it's just baiting and setting up shop. Not every single player has the perks or the team to counteract this method play and it has the high potential to ruin one player's game, eating up their time and getting zero out of it.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672364#Comment_1672364
So the actual mechanism was, in fact, one that required the hooked survivor to be:
- Within the killer’s terror radius and within a minimum distance from the killer
- Not within the terror radius and distance of a killer in an active chase
I'd like to see that patch, because I'm sure the conditions weren't that and were most likely flat distance, without chase or terror radius being prerequisites.
It was based on distance and was disabled if survivors were in the same radius or if the killer was in a chase. The TR thing was not tried, I misspoke. However, given the findings, the TR would just make it worse, because the problem wasn't killers, it was survivors.