Orion
Orion
About
- Username
- Orion
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
Comments
-
OP, I understand what you were going for, but what @CashelP14 said (quoted below for convenience) is 100% accurate. You simply can't compare the way comms affect the two games because one will end outright if comms are used.
@CashelP14 said:
These examples don't quite match up. Pretend a 4 man team goes into Among Us. As you said when one dies they can tell their mates from beyond the grave who actually killed them. If one is imposter they can band together to kill of crew mates and vote the rest out.
Here's the thing though.. this is broken because there is 0% CHANCE of losing in this scenario.
Now look at Dead By Daylight. Comms are extremely strong no one is denying that. Thing is though it's not a guaranteed win for a 4 man swf. Variables like the map, killer, add-ons, map tile spawns and offerings can massively increase the killers chances of winning.
The TL:DR is you can't compare Among Us and Dead By Daylight.
Now I will say I do agree they need to balance swf. I do believe they should make voice chat baseline and buff killers respectively. The need to decrease the divide between swf and solo before making any big balance changes. They also need to buff killers to compensate for this change. Lastly I would like bonus bloodpoints for facing a swf though I don't think the killer should know they are facing a swf till after the game is over.
-
@Exerlin said:
Give me a multi-bodied killer that actually has that part of their power. Either have two different people control the two bodies, or allow the sole killer player to swap between the bodies at will. Give us the killer that Legion should have been.
I made an extremely detailed suggestion for that: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/165212/killer-with-multiple-bodies-idea
-
@noctis129 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1664997#Comment_1664997
The internet use to have absolute freedom back in the day. It didn't have anymore problems back than, than today.
And the term itself is too loose. Regardless of what u think I believe in, I am telling u, I believe in absolute freedom whether we actually have it or not.
You should check out Somalia before 2012. A true anarchist state, total freedom for everyone.
-
Since I saw you mentioning stalking and aura reading...
Stalking (Shape and Ghostface's mechanics) is different from aura-reading, which is different from killer instinct, which is different from having your location revealed.
- Stalking makes you glow, if a certain percentage of your character model is visible.
- Aura-reading literally shows your character model in a bright color, even through walls, for some amount of time.
- Killer instinct "pings" the killer with your location at regular intervals.
- Having your location revealed will show your character model once, in a default pose.
These mechanics should not all be countered by one perk, since it'd make that perk heavily overpowered.
With that out of the way, your change would make the perk worse by comparison when you have Distortion, a perk that both informs you when you aura is being read and hides it automatically.
-
@dollbaby7870 said:
It is sad and shameful that people act this way and say things like that. Kids in every middle and highschool tell other kids to go kill themselves every day and yes, I truly believe it is a generational thing.
I love that you didn't take it to heart. Keep in taking pride in your accomplishments and never let jerks get the best of you.
It would be nice if Behavior allowed end game chat to be turned off so people don't have to deal with it if they don't want to.
Next time report the person and take a screenshot. Post the screenshot on the forums to force Behavior to deal with people that are bullies and not ignore it.
Don't post screenshots on the forum, that just gets you banned for naming and shaming. Report, yes, but don't name and shame. And, if you can, leave the chat enabled. That way you can help us purge these people from the game (by reporting them) so everyone can have a better experience.
-
@piggypablo said:
This game is an escape. Leave the bullshit virtue signaling, SJW, PC policing at the door. If you're too fragile that a username upsets you, you probably shouldn't be playing the game.
It's not virtue signaling, the majority of people just don't think this is acceptable. Virtue signaling is something completely different.
-
@NomiNomad said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1665153#Comment_1665153
There are some I could probably understand, sure, but Wraith? I love that bing bong boi, but that doesn't change the fact that he's one of the weaker killers, in my opinion anyways.
Forum ate my comment, so I'm gonna type a TL;DR version of it.
When the game was released, people complained about the Wraith because of his lack of TR. Said he was gamebreaking because he ignored that mechanic.
-
Done. Here you go:
@Orion said:
Let me preface this by saying I don't care about the rifts. I like the extra BP the challenges give, but that's it. I couldn't care less if I complete them or not (and, in fact, have never completed any of them).
With that said, I think it's unacceptable that someone like @DrKnockers05 can complete every single challenge and still not have the required number of fragments to max out the rift. I have a few ideas on how to fix this, which you'll find below.
Removing the "free" fragments
The first solution I thought of was distributing the required rift fragments to reach the maximum tier throughout every challenge and making it so you have to complete challenges to acquire them. This has the added bonus of not bothering those of us who are not interested in the fragments.
Giving more "free" fragments
This is one of the most obvious ideas, just give more fragments for playing normally. The rift's duration would probably have to be shortened somewhat, to compensate. However, this would annoy people who are not interested in the rift to begin with.
Giving more fragments for completing challenges
This is the other most obvious idea, just give more fragments for completing challenges. Again, the rift's duration would probably need to be shortened. This would benefit people who go for the challenges and would push more people to complete the challenges, since they feel they have a real chance to complete the rift.
Those were the ideas I came up with in a short amount of time. What I'd like to emphasize is, again, that I feel it's unacceptable OK for someone to complete every single challenge and still come up short and that this needs to be solved.
-
Although I don't care about the rift, I feel it is unacceptable that you can complete every single challenge and still have more grinding to do before you finish the rift. It'd be like doing everything that can be done in a game, but still not reaching 100% completion because the game feels you didn't play it long enough. I'm gonna type up a suggestion for this and I hope you guys support it, or at least discuss it so the devs can see this was a bad idea on their part.
-
The Entity did it.
-
@EntitledMyersMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1665118#Comment_1665118
lmao
I've seen people think these killers are overpowered:
- Doctor
- Trapper
- Blight
- Myers
- Pig
Also I was playing survivor and I like saw a Wrath and I stood still because I saw some grass and Wraith hit me but I liked the grass so I stayed then he hit me again and downed me
He downed me in TWO HITS
So yes Wraith is overpowered af
I've been here long enough to see every single killer get called OP. Literally every single one, without exception. Some more often, some less, but every killer has been called OP at some point.
-
A few times per week. I'd say on a bad week I get camped and/or tunneled about once per day and on a good week I get camped and/or tunneled maybe 2-3 times the whole week.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1664667#Comment_1664667
They shouldn’t be. But that doesn’t change the fact there are. And who’s to say these jerks keep their profile name that way for other games where it’s more acceptable for kids to be playing.
Also, as I said earlier. Freedom of Speech doesn’t also mean Free of Respect and Human Decency, and it most certainly does not mean Free From Consequences.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective. What if that WAS taking censorship too far? If so, what are the actual positive implications of publicly spreading a message like that: kill all (insert marginalised group of people)? What good is meant to come from freely saying and spreading stuff like that? What benefit to society at large does that provide?
Little to none if you ask me.
Not only that, but history has proven time and time again that allowing divisive speech inevitably leads to internal (and sometimes external) conflict. Racists, etc., quite literally ruin societies by being divisive, because whereas you can compromise with someone who thinks that people shouldn't say "kill all [insert slur here]", you can't compromise with someone who thinks and, in fact, wants to "kill all [insert slur here]".
This is where the paradox of tolerance comes from and is why hate speech is not something societies should tolerate.
-
@EuphoricBliss35 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1664123#Comment_1664123
Because they don’t have chat logs in their own game?
They do, that person was wrong.
-
@Bumbus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1664660#Comment_1664660
Laws did actually prove to be able to stop.
Censoring based on protecting people from being offended proved the opposite.
Steam has had a profanity filter for at least the past decade, yet it's not the "SJW cesspool" you claim it should have become. In fact, other than websites specifically started by and for SJWs, there are no "SJW cesspools".
"Slippery slope" is a fallacy. It was a fallacy when applied to equal rights (minorities having equal protection under the law, women having equal protection under the law, abolition of slavery, and so on) and it is a fallacy now.
-
That's what anarchists think about laws, but I've yet to meet someone (other than extremists) who wasn't glad murder was illegal.
How about this: we try to impose a standard of respect by banning hate speech and see how it goes? We have literally nothing to lose, only the people spouting hate speech do.
-
@MusicNerd_TC said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663794#Comment_1663794
He's not, he has stated multiple times that he's a survivor main that has played the game since release.
Thank you. I don't understand why people think that you can't recognize and acknowledge problems with your side.
-
@Dzeikor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1664607#Comment_1664607
Competition always brings the worst in people I guess,this is why I dont take it that seriously in the first place.
Competition is good, it pushes us to improve ourselves. When I got my ass kicked in Taekwondo, I wasn't angry, I was excited because it meant I could reach that level if I trained more. The problem is lack of sportsmanship. Sore losers, sore winners, and a general lack of respect for your opponents.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1664585#Comment_1664585
They’re usually the ones under the false idea that Freedom of Speech also means Free of Respect or Human Decency, and Free of Consequences.
Indeed, because it's beneficial to certain groups if you pretend "freedom of speech" is anything you like to say and do, but anything other groups like to say and do is "political" or "pandering" or whatever buzzword they use nowadays.
-
@MasterofSFL said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1662989#Comment_1662989
Having the totem randomly spawn is also the main problem with the current hex mechanism. As I stated to ToxicMyers, hexes are meant to be High Risk, High Reward, but they are effectively a coin-flip in this current iteration. There are only two ways to solve for that: The killer places the hexes or the hexes must spawn in hard to reach areas. Even coding the hexes to spawn the furthest away from the survivors doesn't solve the problem, as that's still information for the survivors to use to find and locate the hex quickly. So you're back to the killer placing the hexes or the hexes spawning in hard to reach areas and the latter makes hexes too powerful if the numbers or effects are off. That leaves you with the killer placing the hexes or keeping RNG and RNG is the entire reason hexes feel too oppressive or too useless to begin with.
Your complaint isn't about the placing, it's about the perceived time it would take to find and attach hexes to totems, but that itself can be addressed in a myriad of different ways. There's nothing stopping killers from simply being within a certain radius of the totem(s) to place the hexes, instead of walking directly to them or activating the hex and a random totem within a wide range lights up. There also isn’t anything barring the action from being instantaneous instead of channeled: So these are moot points.
If the issue is that gaining a debuff is your problem, then don’t put the debuff in. Trading power for risk is the definition of High Risk, High Reward and hexes are already trading certainty for power. The suggestion is only there for balance reasons.
Games last between 5-15 minutes. #4 places Hex:Lullaby at an 8 minute timer, with the ability to recharge the hex. I doubt survivors are going to wait 8 full minutes hiding, without one getting caught, especially with perks like whispers and killers like Doctor.
Again, I have to reiterate this, nothing in #1-6 are concrete. My main concern is making hexes, as a mechanism, consistent and workable. You like #1, because it solves the issue of losing an entire perk, but that then begs the question as to why hex-perks even exist and how certain hexes would even function (I.E. How do you split Ruin?). Your complaints about #2-6 are mainly time centric, yet if the time issue for the killer was resolved, what about the core of the suggestions are actual issues, what ones are workable to you?
For example, what about a combination of #1, #3 and #5 would be a problem, where hexes are Split-Perks with modest effects that you activate for power gains for a limited period, at the risk of losing the perks if cleansed and all the hexes are combined into one randomly lit totem on the map. That solves for your time issue, takes pressure off the killer, gives the killer a modicum of control over the hex, yet allows for Highs and Lows.
You think a coin flip where one of the results is potentially having infinite insta-downs at some point isn't high-risk, high-reward? And just because you couldn't think of an alternative doesn't mean there are literally only two ways to solve the problem. In my experience, if you boil down potential solutions to just two, then either both are unworkable, or there's a better one.
I think my complaints were quite clear, I wrote them down and everything. So far, I've complained about the placement, the time, and how unnecessarily complex your ideas are for both players and developers. The time spent can't be fixed by allowing killers to place totems remotely since they need to be able to see the surrounding area. If they're going to be traveling entire maps just to get started on their totems, they'll be wasting a ton of time. These are not moot points just because you think your ideas are perfect.
My issue is that nerfing hex perks so they're actively detrimental to the killers who use them only "solves the hex problem" in the sense that nobody would ever use them again because they'd be utter garbage. Why would anyone take a perk that benefits the other side? Does that sound balanced to you?
You doubt wrong. You've been here for one month, I've been here for four years. Hiding is exactly what happened when NOED got its first nerf. That's not to mention all the hostage-taking the survivors can and still do, often for hours.
I don't "like" 1, I just think it's the least worst of your ideas and is the one I'd pick to implement if I had to. Solve the three issues I mentioned first (note that they go to the core of the suggestions, not just what you perceive to be tangential issues), and if I can't find any more issues with your new solutions, then I can tell you which ones are workable.
-
@Dzeikor said:
I think people that care more about winning than having fun should really think twice before playing a video game that's not even that competitive.
They have fun by winning. That's what competitive people find fun, winning.
-
If you're not playing to win, you shouldn't care if you lose. Sorry, but that's the gist of it.
-
@Kolonite said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663663#Comment_1663663
Bro he's giving you his anecdotal experience which is all any of us have to go off of. There aren't numbers. Unless BHVR is keeping track of bans and playtime of each respective side. Literally none of us know what the ratio of toxic players is. We can only make guesses taking into account personal experience and how often a particular side is encountered. You're arguing about nothing lmao
Indeed. I even tried to show them that by asking them the exact same request they asked me, but I don't think they got it.
-
Although Steam employs a language filter on comments, there's no such filter for names. It's quite unfortunate, but that's why report systems exist. IMO, people who think "kill all [insert slur here]" is funny have no place on the Internet, but I also know many will ignore the paradox of tolerance and defend these people under the guise of "freedom of speech".
-
Post it in feedback, you only have your own time to lose.
-
@Xyvielia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663681#Comment_1663681
Exactly, they’ll piss around for as long as it takes 2,3,5,7,10, 20+ min dodging lobbys until they finally get ALL their team in. Once (if ever) they do, they’ll have no coms.
Possible most players won’t bother with all of that wasted time and will just legit SWF.
Plus, being that you and your friends did that legit back when there wasn’t SWF, now that there IS a SWF feature, (and hypothetically speaking that this new mode would be put into play) why would you want to try over and over for as long as it takes, exploiting the game’s mechanics, to illegally lobby up with your friends without coms just so you could deviously sync perks to bully the killer.
I just think you personally wouldn’t do that, as well as many others wouldn’t bother trying to do that.
Maybe some would try, but the truth of the issue is that the percentage of fair and balanced legit matches would by far outweigh the number of matches where players would use up all that time trying to sync up their team for a comless match.
There would be much less complaining from both sides with highest percentages of fair and balanced matches dominating DBD.
Only a hand full of derelicts trying to cheat the newly implemented system wouldn’t bring that down.
And we can both play devil’s advocate back and forth all day, but you have to admit that it seems like a step in a better direction than the same old nonsense that hasn’t worked for the past 4 years.
You can't prevent people from using programs like Discord, so that "no comms" thing isn't going to happen.
Many people did, in fact, bother with it when the game came out, and I'll bet you just as many (percentage-wise) would do so even today, especially since you're blocking all groups other than a full 4-man SWF from queuing up together.
Personally I wouldn't because it was a pain in the ass then and would be a pain in the ass now, but many people would and you'd have no way of proving it.
I'm not even playing devil's advocate, this is just me telling you what happened when something similar was in effect way back when. I also disagree wholeheartedly that this would be a step in a better direction. From the last data I remember seeing, most SWF groups are either 2-man or 3-man. That means you've effectively told a substantial chunk of the survivor population that they're not allowed to play with their friends any more. This is not a step in the right direction, this is a step toward a dead game.
-
@LetsPlayTogether said:
So I ve seen one this year, so you dont have to overexaggerate.
...Yeah, except OP is talking about their experience, not yours.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I don't think it's ever gonna be possible to achieve a perfect or even close to perfectly balanced state for DBD no matter what, since it will always come down to the subjective ideas of every single individual's view on what makes or would make DBD balanced as a whole.
But if i had to make changes, i would probably do the following.
_
1.Do like on DBD mobile and let Survivors see the perks of each other before the game starts.
2.Remove the leave button in the menu during trials
3.Change Decisive Strike to activate only when you are unhooked within the killer's terror radius
4.Display to everyone in the lobby any and how many Survivors who have partied up together before joining
5.Display the Killer's aura to Survivors if the Killer has been standing still for too long without using insidious
6.Make Purple Key only work for 1 Player and Red Key only work for 2 Players with an interact animation
Would basically work this way: If a Survivor is wielding a key which he/she would begin unlocking the hatch with, it would trigger the same kind of interaction the Survivors have with opening the exit gates, which for red keys would take the same amount of time it takes to successfully open an exit gate while purple keys requires half the amount of time only. once a key is used and the Survivor(s) have jumped in, the hatch will close again and the lock will respawn and require another unlock to open up again.
7.Make Moris only available whenever the gen count is lesser than the Survivors who are alive
e.g below
3 gens left + 4 Survs alive = 1 Mori
2 gens left + 3 Survs alive = 1 mori
1 gen left + 2 Survs alive = 1 mori
Exit gate + 1 Surv = 1 mori
8.Change Object of Obsession to only function under the following conditions stated below
In the Healthy state only
Limited to only when inside the killer's Terror Radius outside a chase (lullabies does not count)
Waiting for a 15 secs cooldown to pass after chase ends and didn't get hit
9.Change some Survivor perks stats to be slightly decreased in effectiveness for every Survivor using the perk
10.Release an experimental build of the game where people can try out ideas and concepts the devs are testing
11.Automatically have the chat closed when entering the score screen while also having a Gag option in the end game chat that prevents you from seeing what they're writing while they also can't see what you write aswell.
12.Making Gestures uninterruptable.
13.Give Survivors the ability use in-game voice chat during trials with an hearing range and an individual mute button for everyone
14.Give Deathslinger an addon that let's his harpoon gun make gens explode when landing a shot on one with repair progress.
15.Give Trapper the Freddy treatment and give him different kinds of traps to work with.
16.Make Iridescent head work the same way as Iridescent coin does.
17.limit the Sound range for Demogorgon so it can't be heard all over the map.
18.Make the Entity block off the escape zone for the Survivors inside the exit gate if the killer has stepped inside the exit area.
19.Give Clown some Balloon traps he can place, which would give a noise notification to the him if a Survivor pops them, which would also intoxicates them for 1 second, the same way the afterpiece tonic does.
20.Dedicate the next major thing after graphic update to fixing the spaghetti code for this game.
21.Remove perk tiers
22.Nerf second chance perks and Buff Stealth perks for Survivors
23.Double the Bloodpoints gained during chases and make stealth more reliable overall
7.Make Moris only available whenever the gen count is lesser than the Survivors who are alive
This is the most interesting Mori change I've heard and I would like to see this applied to Ebony Memento Moris. Can you open a suggestion thread for the devs to take notice of it?
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663170#Comment_1663170
I'd rather go for blocking certain killers from M&A as a whole. Caleb isn't the only killer with a smaller TR, but he's slower than the others.
If you start blocking killers from using perks due to synergy you're gonna open up a whole can of worms.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663672#Comment_1663672
Again, evidence of what exactly? We all know that human beings will do what they want, that's common sense. You see it everyday with people being rude to each other, that's just apart of human nature. So yeah, what evidence do I need when they teach that in elementary school that people will be mean just because they can. Its a power trip, its commonplace and you know that.
Hey, you're the one who asked me for evidence of my perception (which is based on my experience) first, I just asked the same of you. So the answer to "evidence of what" is "the same evidence you were asking of me", whatever that may be.
-
@Xyvielia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663617#Comment_1663617
Players must register to be on a SWF.
one time registration to play SWF with anyone.
Those who don’t register, never SWF, only Solo queue.
It will only be possible for 1 registered SWF (who is non SWFing) to be loaded into Solo lobby at a time, therefore eliminating the chance for lobby dodging to get a combo match with fellow SWF friends.
Players will want to SWF so they can have coms, so they’ll register for that. They’ll be forced to find a team of any 4players in order to play. If they don’t, they’ll play in a lobby with 3 solo survivors (no other registered SWFs) and no coms.
So if players didn’t register, then they never play with coms. If they then wanted to continuously dodge lobbys to finally get loaded in with 2 or 3 or all 4 of their friends who didn’t register (however long that would take every single time they want a match) Then they still don’t get the coms in that match.
It forces the issue to all players of choosing either SWF or Solo.
Except players can just leave a lobby if their friends are not in it and queue up again until they all get in the same lobby, like I said we used to do back before SWF was a thing.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663665#Comment_1663665
Evidence of what? That I think both sides are just as bad because I see them as players and not as groups?
Edit: I know insane statement amirite? That my original point was the toxicity comes from both ends and its all meaningless because its a player thing not a side thing. Just like how people in the real world will act on their thoughts of toxicity because they can/want to and not because a group of people are just inherently bad. Crazy stuff, I know.
I'm glad you see how silly your request is now that it's being applied to you.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663659#Comment_1663659
So you have no evidence? Nice.
And neither do you, because nobody writes this stuff down. We're all sharing our experiences and perceptions.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663653#Comment_1663653
Okay back it up then. Show me the evidence that its higher than 4:1
I can't because I'm not writing this stuff down, This is just my experience.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663610#Comment_1663610
Yeah but these arsonists are lone wolves right? That one person doesn't represent a group of people they're from. Just like how a player BM'ing doesn't represent a role. There's toxicity on both ends because you can just change sides whenever you wish.
Toxicity comes from the player, not the side. You see more toxic Survivors because the population HAS to be higher but that doesn't mean that its somehow worse. Those same people can play Killer and be just as toxic and vice versa. Its a unique situation because real world rules don't apply.
Its a surface level statement to say Survivors are worse because the population is higher, just like you can encounter more criminals in a place with way more people in it. The % of everything increases when you have more people but the people who live there aren't inherently worse or bad.
The number doesn't matter to me because its about the players not the roles, anyone can BM.
Edit: Survivor vs Killer mindset is stupid because anyone can play either role and be nasty. Simple as.
Edit 2: More clarification.
You see more toxic Survivors because the population HAS to be higher but that doesn't mean that its somehow worse.
I already told you they're disproportionately toxic.
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663490#Comment_1663490
I'm not sure you understand what "disproportionately" means. I'm saying that even if I take into account the fact that there are 4 times as many survivors, they have still been more toxic than killers.
-
I think I did it a few times when I started playing, but killers don't really fall for it any more.
-
@Xyvielia said:
Think about this as a solution:
Solo Queue and SWF are 2 separate games with 2 separate icons on main menu screen.
Solo one game... no coms.
SWF another game, coms.
Have to have 4 ppl to SWF or your party won’t enter into a lobby. Cannot play SWF w/o 4ppl
No 4ppl, then you play Solo queue.
Killers get a buff, then are even across the board; ie. no buffing nerfing them anymore after their perks, add ons, powers are adjusted to contend with SWF.
SWF and Solo have same perks/add ons/items etc... SWFs are nerfed a bit, Solo’s are buffed a bit.
By selecting the SWF icon you’ll be playing a separate coms 4person game with everything nerfed.
Select the Solo icon, enter into a lobby with 3 other random survivors who have somewhat buffed variations of all the perks, items etc.
Killer icon plays out the same way as current. Click Killer enter into a lobby with either a 4person com’d SWF team, or a ENTIRELY Solo comless team.
With adjusted perks etc., every match will be fair and balanced.
That would just make groups of 2 and 3 players dodge lobbies until they were all matched together. It's how we did it back in the old days before SWF was a thing.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663579#Comment_1663579
A Killer has told me to shoot myself in the face. Never got that from a Survivor. Guess Killers are worse! /s
A survivor said he was going to track down and #########/kill my wife and children. I have never received anything like that from killers.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663574#Comment_1663574
When I say I don't care about the numbers I mean the number of times one side does it is meaningless when both sides do it. Both are guilty, sure one side does it more because it has a higher population but both are guilty for committing the same crime.
Edit: Spelling.
I disagree. It matters a lot if one arsonist sets one fire and another sets ten. Legal systems in most countries recognize this for virtually every crime in existence.
They are not equally guilty, which is a nuance you want to ignore so you can say both sides are the same instead of addressing that for each toxic killer, there are more than 4 toxic survivors.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663525#Comment_1663525
Bad comparison. Both sides are committing the same crime but one does it more than the other but I guess we should give the other side a pass because they do it less.
And again, I don't care about the numbers I'm pointing out the fact both sides commit the crime and no one has clean hands.
If you don't care about the numbers, then why did you bring them up as a counter-argument?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Probably unpopular opinion, but I feel like the reason a lot of bad survivors reach high rank is because they rely too much on the amount of crutches and second chances perks provide them.
When you have an arsenal of second chances at your disposal, you don't need to be good to pip in this game.
I always encouraged people who want to get better a survivor to take off perks in general. It will help you learn to loop better without relying on deadhard or an exhaustion perk to bail you out, you will learn to use your eyes and ears without spine chill outright just telling you something is coming, you will learn to safely save people from hooks efficiently instead of just farming survivors because "BT", etc.
Many, many, MANY survivors do not know how to do any of the above. They just rely on perks to do the work for them. The amount of survivors I've been able to sneak up onto survivors on killer by just walking to their location backwards to avoid spine chill is kinda depressing sometimes.
You are correct. Moreover, survivors make dumb plays precisely because they're used to all the second chances. If they actually felt they were in danger, they'd play safer and probably survive more often.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663493#Comment_1663493
Okay and what's your point? I'm just pointing out the fact both sides are gross, I don't care about the numbers.
You're not "pointing out" anything. What you're doing is like saying a jaywalker and an arsonist are both criminals. Yes, they both broke the law, but the arsonist is just worse.
Likewise, many people experience a lot more (and worse) toxicity on the survivor side that's not explainable by the player ratio.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663474#Comment_1663474
Yes, that's correct.
I'm not sure you understand what "disproportionately" means. I'm saying that even if I take into account the fact that there are 4 times as many survivors, they have still been more toxic than killers.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663424#Comment_1663424
Yeah that's probably because its 4:1. I'm just sayin' both sides are degenerate and no side is innocent. I've seen plenty of toxicity spew from both ends and its all the same to me.
"completely disproportionately to the number of survivors"
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Dead By Daylight, the game where my "side" is the righteous one and the other is bad. After playing this game for years both sides are just as bad. I've had a lot Killers spam message me that I'm toxic or trash and Survivors have done it too.
When you play one side you only see the toxicity of the other. When you play a lot of Survivor you'll see a lot of trashy Killers too.
I'm a survivor main, and over 4 years I've seen a lot more toxicity from survivors than I have killers, completely disproportionately to the number of survivors. Maybe that doesn't reflect your experience, but that's what I've seen.
-
@GrimReaperJr1232 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663263#Comment_1663263
Oh, I know it's hard. They can be busted like Nurse, pathetically weak like Old Freddy, or... whatever the hell Old Legion was.
It's just that with out of 21 killers now, only 2 play completely differently from each other. Eh, I'll take another Blight over another Old Legion any day though.
Nurse isn't busted, most survivors just don't know how to play against her and don't want to learn (because "it's boring").
-
@gibblywibblywoo said:
I don't know if they changed it but its always done that as far back as when I first started. You always lost 2 pips. I don't think anyone gives a crap about their rank, really. 90% of DCs are to "outplay" the killer in a "haha you dont get the hook im not salty lelelele" kind of way.
Indeed.
The best way to punish DCers, IMO, would be to force them all into the same lobbies. Everyone else gets normal trials, the DCers get to (not) play together.
-
There are many problems with making unique killers. To name a few off the top of my head:
- Unique killers require unique counters and not everyone will enjoy what the counters entail. This means playing against those killers will not be enjoyable for a large portion of the playerbase. While this is easy to dismiss as just whining from sore losers, people will not play a game that they don't enjoy.
- Unique killers are more complex from a programming standpoint, meaning they require more resources (money) and will come with a slew of bugs (look at the Nurse). Smaller profit margin means the people in charge will be less likely to go along with this idea.
- Unique killers are a nightmare to balance, especially given the ever-increasing number of perks, maps, and interactions.
With that said, I would love for us to get some more unique killers. It feels like we haven't gotten a truly unique killer since the Plague. Even the Executioner, not taking into account the cages, is basically a Deathslinger that doesn't have to reload.
-
@OniWantsYourMacaroni said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1663215#Comment_1663215
Let's be honest.
The meta is already insanely stale anyways (PGTW,Corrupt Intervention,Ruin+Undying+Tinkerer,BBQ is pretty much the standard right now with a few exceptions).
And i didn't say that perks in general shouldn't stack.Only X% slowdown perks like thana and dying light.
This way you could buff them to make them actually worth running without having to worry about players stacking them
The Ruin+Undying combo exists only because of the latest DLC, released last month. Tinkerer is only being used because of its buff from the DLC before that one. I'd hardly call "players using perks from the last 2 DLCs" a "stale meta". And yes, the other perks you mentioned are older or have been used for a while, but there's still great variation in killers' builds, at least in my experience.
No, you didn't say perks in general shouldn't stack, but the same argument you used can be used for literally every other (currently) stackable perk, many of which are underused because they're "not worth running".
-
If you make perks not stack, what you end up with is a stale meta devoid of any "real" builds - players would just take one perk for each situation (search, chase, healing, slowdown, etc.) and be done with it. It'd eliminate creativity and fun for a lot of players.
This would also completely crash the game's balance. When you only need one perk to counter a specific situation, you can run a build that has no practical weaknesses. A killer with one slowdown perk, one chase perk, and one information/location perk using this philosophy of "all perks provide a significant advantage" would be unstoppable.