Peanits
Peanits
About
- Username
- Peanits
- Joined
- Visits
- 6,101
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Jed said:
This question is for all three of you. How fast is your internet speed? I mean mine isnt the best (100 mbps) but I have never had anyone accuse me of lag switching in this game or any other. I did however have a couple of questionable matches yesterday that had huge lag spikes at very convenient moments during the game.Your speed would have to be very low in order for the game to feel like you're lagswitching. I've had those lagspikes too, but only since the update. Survivors will sometimes lag significantly as I'm chasing them, sometimes one or two people lose connection. It's not a you problem, don't worry.
-
No, it's not.
If you can show me a bunch of times when they're doing it, then maybe we can start talking about it being griefing. But one time is fair game. If someone just wants out of that match they're free to do so.
-
All disconnects are treated exactly the same since there's no way to discern between someone pulling the plug and a legitimate connection loss. With that said though, in order for those to trigger a ban alone it would have to happen so often that the game wouldn't be enjoyable to play because you keep losing connection.
-
Yes. Having NOED broken is not an excuse for holding the game hostage.
-
It's random, and random is never there when you need it. I had a bunch of points saved up and started prestiging my wraith during the event. I've been getting 1-4 per bloodweb without fail.
So you can get more, but you're at the mercy of RNG. The woes of level 50.
-
Not everyone wants to farm, some people just want to play the game. While you may like to go easy on people, not everyone likes to have people volunteer to be hooked, or to have to pretend to turn a blind eye so you can work on the event.
If that's what you want to do, go nuts, but there's also people who just want to play the game. Ain't noting wrong with that.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
Peanits said:I've seen this idea a couple times before, sometimes tools instead of parts, or gas. I do like the idea, though this event has shed some light onto what kind of effect that could have on gameplay. I've noticed (as killer) that a good team is able to overcome the additional objective fairly easily, while an average team struggles with that extra match length. It would be a tricky thing to balance well to where it's still a challenge for experienced players while not being brutally unfair and frustrating to newer players.
I'm still down to see how that would play out, but it would need to be done very carefully.
I can see this being the case that's why I think 20 seconds is not alot. One thing you have to know about this event is that it would not be a good reference for this idea in terms of what survivors focus on. Right now with this event survivors spend the first 2m of the match competing for serum instead of doing some gens and Then mid to late game getting the serum. The way I think my idea would go is they search for the boxes which won't take long because of how many there are, Then once they get a part go to the nearest gen to repair. It would take some extra time but right now that's what the game needs since matches end too fast.
I get what you mean, but it would take a bit more than 20 seconds. There's 7 generators on the map. Even assuming the survivors are playing optimally, it would take at least 40 seconds (of interacting alone, not considering the time to search for and take them back to a generator) to put parts into all the generators. In a random group, this would likely take longer as a pre-made ground could split up and search different areas and also discuss which generators already have a part in them.
While you could forgo getting parts for all the generators, this could cause problems if the killer catches on and starts to guard the few generators that you have parts for.
Still, my only concern is that it would be more punishing towards newer and solo players, while pre-made groups would be able to breeze through it at maximum efficiency. The experienced players are the ones that need to be slowed down, not so much the new players.
-
@Kilmeran said:
@Peanits I see you're still commenting in the thread. Are you going to comment on the deranking going on without disconnects that two of us already mentioned to you in reply to your DC ban response (which doesn't solve deranking), or not?I also noticed in other threads the BHVR gets silent very quickly when we point out that many do not DC to derank, and deranking is a core problem well beyond any DC bans.
I'm trying not to derail the thread, since deranking/DCs don't really have anything to do with side objectives. It's also 3:30 AM as I'm jumping between threads replying and trying to stay on top of the spam attack going on, so derailing the thread isn't exactly a top priority.
If someone is intentionally running straight to the killer and dying, that could be seen as a form of griefing since it ruins the game for the other people in the lobby (odds are stacked against the other survivors if they're playing a man down). If we have proof of it happening multiple times, we could probably build a case on that.
For the event specifically, I wouldn't exactly count that as this is the first time an event like this has been attempted, and it's only temporary. If something like this is implemented into the base game permanently, I wouldn't be surprised if the emblem system took it into account.
I ain't shy about talking about it. We're doing what we can, and I'd like to do more. DCs are by far the biggest part of deranking and we just made a huge step in the right direction there. If other methods become more prevalent, we'll definitely look at them too and see how we can best deal with them as well. I've gone through thousands of reports about all sorts of things like that, so don't worry, we're well aware of it.
-
@EqMonkVeeshan said:
@Peanits said:
@Brady said:
@Peanits said:
@Brady said:
@Kilmeran said:
I disagree. From a lot of posts I am seeing here and at other sites in regards to how the secondary objectives are done for Blight, this is exactly what not to do.While the game does need secondary objectives to slow down the gen-rushing, it needs secondary objectives that actually tie into the main objective. As some have repeatedly suggested, maybe first needing parts to collect before a generator can be repaired, or maybe fuel before it can be powered up.
Any secondary objective should absolutely tie into the main objective of the generators, otherwise you'll eventually find the secondary objective being ignored, regardless of any suggested BP bonus, in exchange for gen-rushing and escaping.
Secondary objectives have to be balanced around the primary objective, and in such a way that they cannot be ignored. Otherwise, they ultimately become a waste of development resources, and do nothing to fix the problem that is causing the need for secondary objectives in the first place: gen-rushing.
But...
It'd be cool if they kept it like it is now. Harvest these plants for skins.
It'd be super cool to have a secordary objective implemented in the game identical to this event where instead of earning viles, you earn shards. Obviously it would be themed to suit the feeling of shards and not serum, but you get the jist.
I'd so make it an objective if I could get a mass amount of shards in trade of gen time. Afterall, Killer is all about time management, and it'd be nice.
To play Devil's Advocate for a second, say you're you. You enjoy playing survivor. You have some nice skins already that you either bought, earned through an event, or earned through shards. You have no interest in unlocking other skins and you just want to play the game.
But then comes along the other three survivors. They want to unlock those skins, and they're willing to put the objective on the backburner to do so. So now you're left doing generators all by yourself as the other three roaming around the map just to unlock skins. You end up losing because you can't carry that hard.
Now you could either be a super positive guy and be a good sport about it, or more realistically, you'd probably be frustrated that you lost because everyone else is running around being greedy and not helping with the objective.
That's the issue I'd have with it. If it's totally unrelated to the current match, it's going to be incredibly frustrating to the people who don't care about it and just want to play the game. It's one thing when it's an event and you can go, "Oh well, we all want to unlock free stuff while we can," but it's another thing when that's just part of the base game.
You're right; I agree with you there.
But what if it was limited to 1/2 with no offerings to effect them, similar to totems? Would make it not an entirely-focused objective and would reduce the chances of that situation happening. I mean, it'd be no different from cleansing a totem for BP or saboing a hook. Just a different effect in attempts to slow the game down just that much more. Sabo buffs didn't really help.. Atleast the healing nerf has.
That's the catch-22. If it's optional and it doesn't take that much time to do (like a totem), it has next to no impact on gameplay, and so the point of a secondary objective to slow down games is lost. But if it's optional and does take a noteworthy amount of time, the people who don't care about them are going to be upset when they lose because of it.
I feel like if there were going to be a secondary objective, it should be crucial to the match you're playing in, not something external. That way everyone has a mutual interest in getting the objectives done and nobody feels like they're losing just because everyone's playing for different reasons.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a "you can't work on generators until this is done" type deal either, it could also have an effect elsewhere. For example, there could be a bunch of Entity thingys around the map. For each one standing, the Entity has more power in the match. Destroying one will weaken its presence. They could do stuff like making window blockers appear after fewer vaults, or locking out some pallets until the Entity is weakened. (Sorry Dave, I'm probably butchering the lore here.) Sure, you could ignore them and hope you don't get chased, but you would probably want to get rid of them just in case. The more survivors alive the better your chances, after all.
But the root of the problem will always be whether or not it's optional. So long as it is, it's bound to fail.
see but that is the problem with the game. the game was designed around not being able to communicate and for the survivors to think individually for them selves. as a survivor you can decide to go for a save or not to its up to you. greed is the best way to add that aspect back in to the game even among SWF groups. you make it sound like its a bad thing for people to be frustrated because some one else elected to do something else and make a choice for their own benefit.
I would say it's a little different.
To give one example, you're hooked, one other survivor is left. They don't save you because they found the hatch and they want to escape. Okay, fair game, they're doing that because they want to win.
But now say you're hooked and there's three people left. None of them come to save you because one guy is doing a generator, one guy is milking a plant for bonus points, and the third guy is playing Monopoly. You're not losing because they're trying to win, you're losing because they're not trying to win (except for generator guy, he's the real MVP).
The key difference is when it comes down to that person winning. If someone does me dirty so they can better their chances at winning, I'm not exactly going to be thrilled, but I can understand that. If someone decides to be an anchor and drag down everyone else because they want some optional extra and they don't care about winning, that would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I feel like everyone should have a common goal, that being surviving. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone surviving, but I feel like everyone should want to do the same thing to save at least themselves. Not having a common goal always widens the divide between solo and SWF players since a pre-made group are all going to be on the same page, whereas solo games would be a dice roll as to whether or not everyone's going to be playing the objective.
-
I've seen this idea a couple times before, sometimes tools instead of parts, or gas. I do like the idea, though this event has shed some light onto what kind of effect that could have on gameplay. I've noticed (as killer) that a good team is able to overcome the additional objective fairly easily, while an average team struggles with that extra match length. It would be a tricky thing to balance well to where it's still a challenge for experienced players while not being brutally unfair and frustrating to newer players.
I'm still down to see how that would play out, but it would need to be done very carefully.
-
@Brady said:
@Peanits said:
@Brady said:
@Kilmeran said:
I disagree. From a lot of posts I am seeing here and at other sites in regards to how the secondary objectives are done for Blight, this is exactly what not to do.While the game does need secondary objectives to slow down the gen-rushing, it needs secondary objectives that actually tie into the main objective. As some have repeatedly suggested, maybe first needing parts to collect before a generator can be repaired, or maybe fuel before it can be powered up.
Any secondary objective should absolutely tie into the main objective of the generators, otherwise you'll eventually find the secondary objective being ignored, regardless of any suggested BP bonus, in exchange for gen-rushing and escaping.
Secondary objectives have to be balanced around the primary objective, and in such a way that they cannot be ignored. Otherwise, they ultimately become a waste of development resources, and do nothing to fix the problem that is causing the need for secondary objectives in the first place: gen-rushing.
But...
It'd be cool if they kept it like it is now. Harvest these plants for skins.
It'd be super cool to have a secordary objective implemented in the game identical to this event where instead of earning viles, you earn shards. Obviously it would be themed to suit the feeling of shards and not serum, but you get the jist.
I'd so make it an objective if I could get a mass amount of shards in trade of gen time. Afterall, Killer is all about time management, and it'd be nice.
To play Devil's Advocate for a second, say you're you. You enjoy playing survivor. You have some nice skins already that you either bought, earned through an event, or earned through shards. You have no interest in unlocking other skins and you just want to play the game.
But then comes along the other three survivors. They want to unlock those skins, and they're willing to put the objective on the backburner to do so. So now you're left doing generators all by yourself as the other three roaming around the map just to unlock skins. You end up losing because you can't carry that hard.
Now you could either be a super positive guy and be a good sport about it, or more realistically, you'd probably be frustrated that you lost because everyone else is running around being greedy and not helping with the objective.
That's the issue I'd have with it. If it's totally unrelated to the current match, it's going to be incredibly frustrating to the people who don't care about it and just want to play the game. It's one thing when it's an event and you can go, "Oh well, we all want to unlock free stuff while we can," but it's another thing when that's just part of the base game.
You're right; I agree with you there.
But what if it was limited to 1/2 with no offerings to effect them, similar to totems? Would make it not an entirely-focused objective and would reduce the chances of that situation happening. I mean, it'd be no different from cleansing a totem for BP or saboing a hook. Just a different effect in attempts to slow the game down just that much more. Sabo buffs didn't really help.. Atleast the healing nerf has.
That's the catch-22. If it's optional and it doesn't take that much time to do (like a totem), it has next to no impact on gameplay, and so the point of a secondary objective to slow down games is lost. But if it's optional and does take a noteworthy amount of time, the people who don't care about them are going to be upset when they lose because of it.
I feel like if there were going to be a secondary objective, it should be crucial to the match you're playing in, not something external. That way everyone has a mutual interest in getting the objectives done and nobody feels like they're losing just because everyone's playing for different reasons.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a "you can't work on generators until this is done" type deal either, it could also have an effect elsewhere. For example, there could be a bunch of Entity thingys around the map. For each one standing, the Entity has more power in the match. Destroying one will weaken its presence. They could do stuff like making window blockers appear after fewer vaults, or locking out some pallets until the Entity is weakened. (Sorry Dave, I'm probably butchering the lore here.) Sure, you could ignore them and hope you don't get chased, but you would probably want to get rid of them just in case. The more survivors alive the better your chances, after all.
But the root of the problem will always be whether or not it's optional. So long as it is, it's bound to fail.
-
@Brady said:
@Kilmeran said:
I disagree. From a lot of posts I am seeing here and at other sites in regards to how the secondary objectives are done for Blight, this is exactly what not to do.While the game does need secondary objectives to slow down the gen-rushing, it needs secondary objectives that actually tie into the main objective. As some have repeatedly suggested, maybe first needing parts to collect before a generator can be repaired, or maybe fuel before it can be powered up.
Any secondary objective should absolutely tie into the main objective of the generators, otherwise you'll eventually find the secondary objective being ignored, regardless of any suggested BP bonus, in exchange for gen-rushing and escaping.
Secondary objectives have to be balanced around the primary objective, and in such a way that they cannot be ignored. Otherwise, they ultimately become a waste of development resources, and do nothing to fix the problem that is causing the need for secondary objectives in the first place: gen-rushing.
But...
It'd be cool if they kept it like it is now. Harvest these plants for skins.
It'd be super cool to have a secordary objective implemented in the game identical to this event where instead of earning viles, you earn shards. Obviously it would be themed to suit the feeling of shards and not serum, but you get the jist.
I'd so make it an objective if I could get a mass amount of shards in trade of gen time. Afterall, Killer is all about time management, and it'd be nice.
To play Devil's Advocate for a second, say you're you. You enjoy playing survivor. You have some nice skins already that you either bought, earned through an event, or earned through shards. You have no interest in unlocking other skins and you just want to play the game.
But then comes along the other three survivors. They want to unlock those skins, and they're willing to put the objective on the backburner to do so. So now you're left doing generators all by yourself as the other three roaming around the map just to unlock skins. You end up losing because you can't carry that hard.
Now you could either be a super positive guy and be a good sport about it, or more realistically, you'd probably be frustrated that you lost because everyone else is running around being greedy and not helping with the objective.
That's the issue I'd have with it. If it's totally unrelated to the current match, it's going to be incredibly frustrating to the people who don't care about it and just want to play the game. It's one thing when it's an event and you can go, "Oh well, we all want to unlock free stuff while we can," but it's another thing when that's just part of the base game.
-
@Kilmeran said:
@Peanits said: Though I wouldn't be opposed to seeing rank mean more and start to more accurately reflect skill level.
That, right there, is the crux of the problem with a huge part of this game. I'm a new player, and already see how easy it is to Pip as Survivor. I will be Rank 15 before I even have enough Perks unlocked to be remotely viable as a new player.
Yet, I will then be in the ranks where the vets are deranking because they don't like the Red Ranks.
It's why I just shoved DBD to a side game that I might play every once in a while. Though I own all the current DLCs, I won't be rushing to buy the one in December or any in 2019. At least, not until BHVR does something about this excuse for a Rank system and makes it not only equate to skill, but also prevents the Vets from deranking like they are.
As a new player already having to do the BP grind for Perks (especially the needed Teachable Perks across different characters), but also play the RNG bloodweb, hitting Rank 15+ and getting stomped by deranked Vets while doing so . . . no thank you.
Regarding at least the deranking part, doing so is almost definitely going to land them in a DC ban wave. The penalties for excessive disconnecting were just massively increased (from 1d > 2d > 1w > permanent to 1w > 2w > 4w > permanent). So you should see much less deranking going forward.
-
No, it's not.
Dropping them enough times will make them automatically wiggle out anyway. Yes, it does give you some extra distance, yes, it's a little cheesy, but cheese isn't against the rules.
Except Gorgonzola. I will not allow that in my house.
-
The thing about this as a secondary objective is: it's optional.
While yes, everyone's going to be fighting over them right now, once people start to finish the event they'll have no use for them. They could completely ignore them and just do generators. A bloodpoint boost would be more or less the same. A group with thousands of hours in the game and all perks unlocked have no need for bloodpoints most of the time, so that side objective is negligible. These are the kinds of players an additional objective is supposed to accommodate, not the new guys who are just scraping together as many bloodpoints as they can.
For a side objective to work effectively, it needs to be integral to the game (i.e. You cannot win without doing it). This event- having just launched- shows more or less how that would have an effect on the outcome of a game, but if it were to be a permanent addition, it would need to be something that everyone needs to do, not just an optional thing in case you want extra stuff.
I just finished playing a bunch of killer games without farming the event and I kinda' like what I see. Good players can still run around and waste time, but by the time things really get going, you've got a bunch of pallets down and there's probably someone on the hook. It does seem to be a little more unfair to average and below survivors. Though I wouldn't be opposed to seeing rank mean more and start to more accurately reflect skill level.
TL;DR, that would still be a little too optional. I think a side objective like this (but not optional) is great against good survivors who know how to kill time, but I feel like it would be a little too punishing on new players were it a full time thing.
-
Haunted ground applies the exposed status effect to all survivors. The exposed effect only makes your normal attacks deal "double" damage (instant dying state). It does not apply to killer powers. The huntress' hatchets do not count as a normal attack.
-
To clarify, it was three outfit pieces before, but due to feedback, it was changed to six outfit pieces.
So basically yes, two full outfits. -
They do not, but that would be cool to see in the future.
-
Just going to quote this:Please create discussions with clear topicIf you want to talk about something other than the event, go nuts. Variety is nice. But at least pick a topic instead of repeatedly bumping a post about nothing.
-
Short answer, because if you just close the hatch, the game turns into the hide and seek world championship. The killer NASCARs around the map checking generators, the survivor hides and waits for an opportunity that never comes. If they touch a generator, the killer is going to hear it and know they're close.
It's a stalemate and it's fun for nobody. I'd rather just take my win and let them have the hatch and move on with my day, rather than searching every inch of the map for the last guy.
-
I once saw someone get downed at the exit gate. The killer (trapper) almost got the hook, but someone took a hit to prevent it. He chased them and downed them again.
He then proceeded to step in his own trap. The survivor got away, we all laughed, the killer was a good sport about it. -
With the way things are calculated, it's longer than that. It's about 95 seconds to heal with self care *without* dying light. I wasn't able to test dying light because it was a 1v1 KYF game.CoolAKn said:Default Healing Time: 16 Seconds
Self-Care (50% speed): +16 seconds; 32 seconds
Dying Light (25% speed) +8 seconds (with self-care); 40 seconds
Sloppy Butcher (25% speed): +8 seconds (with self-care); 48 seconds
Coultophobia (50% speed) +16 seconds (with self-care); 64 seconds
Thanatophobia, 3 survivors injured (12% speed) +3.84 seconds (with self-care); 67.84 seconds
Inefficiency doesn't increase the time, it decreases the amount of charges you add. So healing is 16 charges, and you heal 1cps. Self care is half that, so you add 0.5cps. etc.
Small detail, but it makes a big difference.
(Sorry, on mobile right now, can't do the math. But it's really long.) -
This has gotten ugly and thoroughly off topic, so I'm going to go ahead and lock this now.
-
That's an exaggeration. Darkest moonlight offerings were originally made for the old engine where they worked fairly well. Due to changes in the way lighting worked in the engine update, these offerings could make some maps excessively dark to the point where you could hide in plain sight and not get spotted.
I'm all for Mori's getting removed or heavily nerfed too, but the moonlight offerings were not working properly, and they couldn't even be found for a long time. There was ample time to use them up. -
Completely ignoring the sabotage and hook spacing changes I see.
-
Bans are only issued with cold hard evidence. If we have even the slightest doubt, we play it safe and do not ban.
These seven day bans you're talking about were likely for excessive disconnecting, and they use statistics saved in the backend to detect. They are not based on player reports or guessing. -
It'll only affect your rank if no survivors are near the hook. If someone is nearby, the game does not expect you to leave and will not punish you.SmokePotion said:@GrannyonAcid said:
There's really not a lot to counter flashlights. The only real way you can do it if you want to hook someone is to face a wall when you go for the grab. Obviously not every flashlight user is good. But when you're facing a SWF team that is all running flashlights. There's no other way to counter it. Wait till you down one next to a wall. Move your camera or walk to the hook backwards. Put them on the hook. Face camp the person.I'm very against camping myself. But at this point there's nothing wrong with just face camping them. They don't care that you're not getting points for hooking survivors. And if you let that person off the hook. It's just going to be a struggle to get the next person to one. Slowly face camp until they're all dead. Even if you face camp... They'll stay around the hook and not work on gens. You lose 0 time in these situations.
You are actually right in this, sorta. The "Bully Groups" tend to ignore gens, unless they are gen tapping and teabagging you. and will usual;y try to brute force a hook. Sometimes I can get more hooks, if they aren't survivor gods.
However I think it's dumb that I get punished in this situation next patch. If theres 2 people trying to unhook, it makes sense to stay near the hook, and try for a second hook. (or even third!)
THANK YOU to whoever posted the flasdhlight tutorial. Finding semi-recent guides for this game has been... Hard. There's almost no community. it's like it's well known this is an unballanced game or something...
-
Food for thought, say you play a lot of DBD and you clock in several hundred games in a month. You're bound to have to leave a few games due to freak bugs (getting stuck inside a hook, for example), due to someone cheating or exploiting, etc. It happens.
Now if it was just a flat rate, a person who plays a lot and only disconnects when they need to would probably get punished. But comparatively, someone who plays less would be able to disconnect much more frivolously since they might only play two dozen games that month.
I see what you're saying, but you also have to keep in mind the matches people aren't leaving, not just the ones they are. If they disconnect from 1/100 matches, they're not really a troublemaker. You want to root out the ones that do it unecessarily, not the ones who play a lot. -
I'm sure I've already answered this exact question elsewhere in the thread, unless I'm thinking of another thread. But everyone is subject to the same rules. If some disconnects from over a certain percentage of their total games, they'll still be flagged and banned. The system that flags them does not care who they are, and nobody's double checking each one to see if they're a streamer.Giche said:@Kilmeran said:
The problem, though, is when BHVR directly rewards streamers like Jendenise. I'm waiting to see if anyone from BHVR replies to the Page-6 post I tagged them in, asking them for a comment since she has now openly admitted to the behavior in this thread.
Maybe reminding them wouldn't hurt.
@Peanits i would love to hear some official thoughts on sponsored streamers intentionally DCing to ruin games, to then ruin low rank killers games as well by bullying new players.
-
Check the area before picking them up. If you think someone might be running in for a save, look the other way. This will make it take longer for them to get into position. When possible, face a wall while picking them up.
The window for a blind is incredibly small now that the pickup animation is shorter. Basically if they're not already in position, they're probably not going to get it. It's very easy to counter now. -
@blaahval22 said:
Is there any point for us in using the rate match and or thumbs up/down system for other players on PS4 as of now?I always report intentional disconnects for unsportsmanlike behaviour, but if the game is not moderated at the moment I might as well spare the effort.
Everything is still logged in the backend, it's just not possible to place a ban on consoles at the moment.
-
The most overrated perks I would say are Thanataphobia and self care.
Thanataphobia- even when you do have all four injured- barely does anything, and is next to impossible to maintain. We're talking an extra ~14 seconds on a solo generator if for some reason nobody heals up that entire time. I know nobody's really clamoring for Thanataphobia, but I see waaaaaay too many people using it for how weak it is.
Self care is a wasted perk slot 99% of the time. Two survivors can heal each other up in the exact same time. Finding another survivor if you are injured is incredibly easy to do. I don't even run it anymore because when I did, half the time someone would show up in the middle of my heal to finish me off. I dropped it like an ugly baby and never looked back and it hasn't affected my survival at all. The only time I miss it is when I'm the last one up and injured, but that doesn't happen all too often (certainly not enough for me to use a perk slot on it).
Underrated would be Caulrophobia, Pop Goes the Weasel and Kindred.
Caulrophobia is nasty. It's such a massive increase to healing time. Combine that with Sloppy Butcher or some terror radius increasing perks/add-ons and ain't nobody healing on your watch. It's already crazy long, but with the PTB changes I was able to get a ~95 second self care. Even if they do heal up, that's a ton of time to lose.
Pop Goes the Weasel is great if used right. If you hook a survivor next to a generator you know someone has been working on, you can quickly run over and take off a huge chunk of its progression instantly while still keeping pressure on the other survivors. I probably put way too much strategy into where I hook survivors, but it's a subtle skill that really pays off once you get used to it.
Kindred is a life saver when playing with randoms, even just one or two. It make such a huge difference in efficiency alone, not to mention you won't get left on the hook for over a minute while everyone thinks, "Someone else has them, I'm just going to do this generator."
-
@ChesterTheMolester said:
Anyone else appreciating the fact that many will have to enjoy their spicy bans during the event?You would not believe how satisfying it is when dealing with really toxic reports right in the middle of an event/bloodhunt. Oh well, they gotta' learn somehow.
@thesuicidefox said:
Don't they condone DC to derank? I know they let Fog streamers do it with no penalty. Maybe your friend got banned for other reasons.Nope. Everyone's subject to the exact same rules. There's a certain threshold that'll automatically flag your account once you cross it (percentage of your total games played). Often times streamers play loads of games because they stream for long periods of time, so in the grand scheme of things, they don't end up crossing that threshold- it gets offset by all the games they didn't disconnect from.
In any case, we do not condone it at all.
-
@ChesterTheMolester said:
Yeah the german version makes me wonder if they just picked a few canadian people from the street that had a german dictionary around.No, they're actually German.
The thing to keep in mind is that translators are often not given context, just a list of strings. That's why a lot of time it just seems a little off. You can't just translate 1:1 most of the time, and without context, some of the finer details get lost.
-
To clarify, DC bans follow a completely separate progression now (1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, permanent). Previous DC bans count towards this progression, so if you had two prior DC bans, you would get a 4 week ban.
-
You don't need a poll, console bans are already on the way. Can't say when just yet, but it's being worked on.
-
No. Absolutely not.
Okay, maybe. No promises.
-
Ideal outcome is 2 dead 2 escaped, as mentioned on stream a whole bunch of times.
You don't want the game to be balanced just around feedback. Most people only play one side and so their feedback is super biased. I have seen some ridiculous suggestions that would be blatantly OP or unfun, and their creators stood by them stone faced a totally serious about them. Feedback is great for showing you where an issue is, but not necessarily how to fix it. If you listen solely to feedback, you're going to have a bad time.
DC bans have actually just been massively increased. You may have noticed a bunch of posts about it. They start at a week now.
Camping while no other survivors are near the hook will soon penalize your rank. This will (hopefully) mean that killers that camp with no reason stay in the low ranks while killers who only camp when it's necessary rank up to the high ranks. The emblem system as a whole is always being looked at and tweaked.
Hatch I would say is a matter of perspective. I don't mean to say that it couldn't be better, but if I already killed three, I couldn't care less if one person gets out. I already won. The suggestion I keep seeing about just letting the killer close the hatch is not a good idea since that would just force the survivor into a stalemate in which they hide around the map for half an hour because the second they touch a generator the killer will know exactly where they are.
"Killers are deliberately designed to be weak." is just straight up untrue. Not all killers may be crazy powerful when they launch, but they are absolutely not designed to be weak.
I'm okay with hexes. I think individual perks could be better, and some of the totem spots could be moved. But as a whole, I have no issue with the hex system.
The stun queue was an unintended consequence of a different change and was quickly reverted. I don't see a reason to bring that up now.
Wall of answers.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@Peanits said:
DC bans have always been there, the bans were just following the regular durations and so you often wouldn't even know they happened. You could totally miss a 24 hour ban.Holding the game hostage on either side is bannable. This includes a survivor wandering around the map for half an hour while the gates are powered and they're free to leave (not as in they're in the gates and you just aren't chasing them out). If you notice a survivor doing this, I'd recommend starting a recording. Windows 10 has a recorder built in if you don't have one of your own. Just press Windows + G to bring it up. It's not the best, but it'll do. Even if you lag, something's better than nothing. A few minutes is enough to prove it.
Same goes for if a killer is holding the game hostage (either blocking survivors in so they can't leave/move, or using doctor to specifically prevent survivors from powering generators but not killing <--- THIS IS FOR EXTREME CASES, like when the game goes on for half an hour and he's literally just shocking you over and over without any attempt to hit you).
Take that video, make a support ticket under Additional Player Report Information at https://support.deadbydaylight.com/hc/en-us. And absolutely report in-game as well. Even if you can't grab a video for whatever reason, report them in-game. This logs the match.
Can you please clarify as to whether if you're the one being taken hostage, and you have to DC as there is no way to complete the match via your means the DC will mean nothing?
Also, I personally don't think this is happening to the extent that if you have to DC from a hostage match it's going to be enough so that you end up getting banned.
It really doesn't happen enough to get you DC banned. Loads of people play in red ranks every day and as one of the guys that goes through all the reports, I can safely tell you that it's not very common. In any case, the threshold is high enough to take situations like that into consideration. In order for that to get you banned, it would have to happen a lot.
-
DC bans have always been there, the bans were just following the regular durations and so you often wouldn't even know they happened. You could totally miss a 24 hour ban.
Holding the game hostage on either side is bannable. This includes a survivor wandering around the map for half an hour while the gates are powered and they're free to leave (not as in they're in the gates and you just aren't chasing them out). If you notice a survivor doing this, I'd recommend starting a recording. Windows 10 has a recorder built in if you don't have one of your own. Just press Windows + G to bring it up. It's not the best, but it'll do. Even if you lag, something's better than nothing. A few minutes is enough to prove it.
Same goes for if a killer is holding the game hostage (either blocking survivors in so they can't leave/move, or using doctor to specifically prevent survivors from powering generators but not killing <--- THIS IS FOR EXTREME CASES, like when the game goes on for half an hour and he's literally just shocking you over and over without any attempt to hit you).
Take that video, make a support ticket under Additional Player Report Information at https://support.deadbydaylight.com/hc/en-us. And absolutely report in-game as well. Even if you can't grab a video for whatever reason, report them in-game. This logs the match.
-
@DeadByFlashlight said:
@Peanits said:
Farming at someone else's expense is bannable. So forcing someone who doesn't want to farm to farm, for example, or working with the killer to unhook someone so they can instantly down them and hook them repeatedly. Or an example I see a lot of, a guy just wants to do generators but the killer wants to farm so he'll just keep grabbing them off the generator and forcing them to farm.Nobody cares if the game starts a man down so y'all farm and get some points. If your farming becomes griefing, that's when it's a problem.
The only thing I wonder about this, how is the support supposed to determine whether the survivors farmed with the killer intentionally and then just reported him afterwards or whether they have been forced to?
If you send a ticket to support for this sort of thing, you should attach a video of it. Those support tickets are only for additional info (like video evidence). If you're unable to record a video, you should just report it in-game. We review each report individually.
-
Farming at someone else's expense is bannable. So forcing someone who doesn't want to farm to farm, for example, or working with the killer to unhook someone so they can instantly down them and hook them repeatedly. Or an example I see a lot of, a guy just wants to do generators but the killer wants to farm so he'll just keep grabbing them off the generator and forcing them to farm.
Nobody cares if the game starts a man down so y'all farm and get some points. If your farming becomes griefing, that's when it's a problem.
-
I don't think anyone should be able to control their rank. Lowering your rank for easier matches means you're making the match worse for the people you're going against (on either side). That means that the people you're going against are going to have a miserable time playing against someone who should be a higher rank. Not to mention that while you're deranking, you're ruining the game for the other four people in the lobby.
The rank system should more accurately reflect your rank, though. In an even match, you shouldn't feel like you're getting stomped. The emblem system is always being balanced to be more accurate, so hopefully one day rank will be a better representation of skill.
I feel like removing the safety pip would be a great step in the right direction. It would make it easier for people to derank back to a rank that they're comfortable in. I find it to be too easy to safety pip, meaning that you're eventually going to rank up on average (you have to do extremely poorly to de-pip). The skill levels at rank 1 vary wildly because of it. You'll have some people who well deserve it, and you'll have others that'll leave you wondering how they got past rank 19.
Realistically speaking, rank 1 should mean "best of the best". I don't mean this in a rude way, but we're not all the best of the best. A lot of the people at rank 1 on both sides just shouldn't be there, so I get why it's frustrating. In the perfect world, you should have a challenging but fair match at whatever rank you're at.
I do not, however, think deranking is excusable. That just takes the issue you have and dumps it on other people instead.
-
Did you manage to grab a video of it and send it to https://support.deadbydaylight.com/hc/en-us (along with reporting them in-game)? If so, yes, it will be dealt with.
-
We do not discuss bans in public, so I'm going to go ahead and lock this. But I will leave this here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/19450/game-rules-and-report-system#latest
There is only one thing we use 2+ week softbans for.
-
@MegaWaffle said:
@Peanits said:
That's what bloodwarden is for. I think making it happen passively when the killer gets close would remove the butt cheek clenching moments when someone's running to the exit gate with the killer hot on their tail.It would also remove the "butt dancing" moments when survivors know their safe sitting at the door.
Just playing Devil's advocate.
It would, but you can already do that by just hitting them.
-
The Entity does not accept resignations.
-
@Nickenzie said:
Peanits said:Interesting, but I feel like the first would be too much on some maps. If there were maps with three floor drops, maybe, but a lot of maps were designed with two story drops, so changing that retroactively would cause a lot of problems. Coal tower, for example, would basically just have one staircase leading upstairs and then a death window, should you choose to use it. Not to mention that you can easily take a fall from that height if you land on your feet.
Though in that case, those three story drops would feel like beginner traps. There's no reason to try to take them, the killer can't force you to take them (you might as well just get hit), so the only time you'd see someone do it is when they don't know any better.
Maybe I was a little too harsh when I said two floors. However, (knowing that you play Left 4 Dead) if you was to walk off a ledge that would kill you, then you should get the first dying state (Falling). Balanced Landing can made you immune to the first dying state (Falling) so you can take falls that would otherwise cause you to enter dying state. I just think that this mechanic would be unique and can add some funny moments to the game! Can you imagine the killer pulling you up and into his shoulder when accidentally walked off a ledge?
I do think it would be neat, and I would like to see some more instances where another survivor needs to come rescue you. I'm just not sure how that could work in-game, since no killer can force you off the edge, so it would primarily be a mistake for new players to make before they learn that they can't drop from that high.
-
@Tsulan said:
Peanits said:@Tsulan said:
Peanits said:
@Tsulan said: Peanits said:
@Grimbergoth said:
@Peanits said:
That's what bloodwarden is for. I think making it happen passively when the killer gets close would remove the butt cheek clenching moments when someone's running to the exit gate with the killer hot on their tail. i think your missing what he is saying . hes talking about the tbagging survivors who sit at the gate doing nothing except waiting for the killer to show up so they can get a fast chase bonus . at that point in the game all perks are useless except noed and only if they are not hugging the exit itself like 99% that stay behind do . Nah, I get that, but it's also tricky. How do you make it punish people who are teabagging but not those that go to the gates to heal up before going back for a rescue or take a hit, for example? Or even someone just standing there so the killer can hit them for some free points? You could try to get some fancy teabag detecting technology in there, but that's more effort than it's worth and could also create some unwanted situations. (e.g. Survivor is running from the killer and is just barely going to get out, someone else was sitting there teabagging at the gate so now it's blocked.) If they're teabagging at the games, I'd just hit them. Takes a second, and then they either have to leave or they get hooked. Blood Warden needs a rework. It should be activated, when the killer presses a button. If survivors want to heal themselves up, to save someone else, then they should do it in an unsafe environment. Not at the gate, where even if they get downed, they escape.
Devs said, that pallets are not supposed to be save places. Why are the gates? I won't comment on blood warden since I haven't played with it much, but I have seen it completely turn around games a couple times. I think making it on-demand would be a bit much. If they're already in the gates, you basically lost. That's why it's safe. They powered the generators, opened the gate, and they are quite literally an inch away from winning. If you hit them, they either have to leave or they'll lose. I don't see any reason to give the killer kills in that situation because they really did not earn them. It's a "no risk, high reward" situation. Survivor doesn't risks anything by staying at the gate and healing. But gains a lot if he goes back to unhook.
Survivor perks work on demand. Deliverance, Dead Hard, Lithe, Sprint Burst and Self Care.
I don't see what you're getting at with survivor perks being on-demand. You could say the same about killer perks. Pop Goes the Weasel is on-demand. So are Overcharge, Rancor, and Bamboozle by the same logic. Even then, Sprint Burst is not on-demand, it activates when you first sprint. The equivalent here would be if you could activate Sprint Burst whenever you want by pressing a button like Dead Hard. In any case, I don't want to see a "Yeah, you beat me, but I pressed a button so now I win." I don't want kills I didn't earn.
If a survivor does choose to leave the gate, they are taking a risk. If they stay there, they're safe. Leaving the gate is not risk free.
All the perks you named require a animation lock. Like borrowed time.
Not exactly on demand.Anyway, senzu joined the conversation and I'm really to tired for this kind of discussion.
Btw, you might want to take a look at the survivor forum. Bots running rampage.
I mean, Lithe has the exact same animation lock as Bamboozle. Deliverance locks you into an animation as well, same with Self Care.
Thanks for the heads up, I took care of it.
-
Interesting, but I feel like the first would be too much on some maps. If there were maps with three floor drops, maybe, but a lot of maps were designed with two story drops, so changing that retroactively would cause a lot of problems. Coal tower, for example, would basically just have one staircase leading upstairs and then a death window, should you choose to use it. Not to mention that you can easily take a fall from that height if you land on your feet.
Though in that case, those three story drops would feel like beginner traps. There's no reason to try to take them, the killer can't force you to take them (you might as well just get hit), so the only time you'd see someone do it is when they don't know any better.