Pizzaman
Pizzaman
About
- Username
- Pizzaman
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,346
- Last Active
Comments
-
What I don't get is: why do people have to resort to checking social media for hints about game issues, when they could actually show this message ingame.
-
@foxsansbox said:
Nurse and Plague.
The only thing I regret is losing the flavor I loved, but in terms of performance I'm making survivors far more miserable than I was playing DS, and that is definitely my intent after they needlessly butchered him.
That doesn't sound very healthy. Nobody should play a game to make other players feel miserable.
That should be a red flag to you and maybe it's time to play a different game, or seek professional help?
-
@Azuilaz said:
Behavior keeps nerfing killers and doesn’t take the killer into account at all, i know spirit and deathslinger were very strong and needed nerfs but when Pyramid Head needs nerfs they buff him as compensation, what does spirit get? Does stridor get rebuffed? No does Iron Will get nerfed? No does Spirit herself receive some little buff? No she just straight up gets 2 nerfs. Then what about Deathslinger, he can no longer quickscope which is the fun thing about him and what does he get? Faster reload? More durable chain? Nope, just a speed increase while aiming? Are you serious? And then he also gets a bigger terror radius? I’m fine with the bigger terror radius but now that all the fun things have been taken away it won’t effect me cuz I won’t play the guy no more, BHVR needs to just get some people with an ounce of competence on their balance team because this is sad, stop nerfing all the fun killers and then giving them nothing in return, you wanna nerf these killers? Then give them a meaningful buff in return stop making this game even more survivor sided than it already is, cuz I haven’t even been playing for a full year and I’m about to quit it’s getting ridiculous
The adjustments are necessary. If you can't understand why, you are probably not interested in the game having a decent balance.
And no, the devs don't need to give a "meaningfull buff in return". There is nothing to ask for, nothing to be compensated, just nothing. If new Killers are released, and they are as unhealthy for the gameplay like nurse, spirit and deathslinger, then enjoy the slaughterfest while it lasts. But you can not, in all seriousness, be so entitled that you want to get a buff when the devs correct some of their design mistakes.
Balancing is not a zero sum game.
-
Most people that are not deeply involved in any kind of DBD community (this forum, reddit or a DBD streamer) don't even know about your Haddonfield stories.
And in contrast to the make-believe that is spread on a weekly basis, haddonfield is not an insta lose for the killer. The last time we got some statistics about kill rates on maps, Haddonfield was associated with a kill rate of 56,73%
Heck, I drop Haddonfield offerings just in case it's one of you guys. So that when you start the trial, you've got that bad tingling feeling in the back of your head, that looming self fullfilling prophecy of inevitable crushing defeat.
The psychological warfare is on, and you guys make it happen and even keep it alive.
And for that I want to thank you all!
You're the best!
-
@SasukeKun said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2508822#Comment_2508822
Killer meta doesn't compare to survivor meta, otherwise this topic wouldn't be here
This topic is only here, because you just opened it, and looking at your comments and topics, you seem to be obsessed with deadhard.
-
@R2k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/281603/dbd-is-becoming-more-and-more-unfun-to-play
I always want to ask people their definition of fun.
Also u come in PvP game and blame the game for being PvP. Dude, u are on 4 man team and u have to play as team, if for some reason they don't do gens, then u do it. There shouldn't be problem about it.
Killer balance is a separate question...
Overall let's just hope devs will gather their data and made some healthy decisions about it. And i rly hope they won't be survivor sided.
That last sentence sounds already pretty unhealthy to me.
Either you want the devs to look at the data and make decisions based on that (whatever the outcome may be, read: whether you like it or not) or you want changes that favor killers (aka "i rly hope they won't be survivor sided").
-
@Cerebral_Harlot said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2481075#Comment_2481075
They said complications _with the audio files. Suggesting that the issue was in-game rather than out of studio.
It's corporate lingo
-
Zombies are not meant to win the game for a Nemesis, they add some kind of (random) "support" and that's about it (and that should never change).
Read: you don't need faster, more aggressive, and definitely not more zombies.
-
Goodbye "The Underground Complex"!
You will not be missed.
-
@Sideralkchudo said:
And also I use the hatch trick, is that also forbidden?? thank you
You, as a Devotion 5 Player, should know the game and what you're allowed to do and what not. So I take your post as a "maaaa, look maaaa, I made some people on the internet salty" post. Good job.
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400922#Comment_2400922
@EntitySpawn didn't say the killer in the video had a ping of 40 and the survivor had a ping of 60+. He said he has been in a match himself with a ping of 40 and a survivor with a ping of 60+ and had a hit cancelled at a pallet. He said this because you said "how is the video proving anything at all except that the killer seems to have had worse latency to the servers than the survivor?". Why should you not believe him?
You don't need a video to prove this can happen either. All you need is math.
I don't know what a pallet drop time is so just to give it a time, let's use .25 seconds or 250 milliseconds. If someone knows the official time, let us know. Using that and knowing a stun occurs at 50% that means it would take 125 milliseconds from start of pallet throw to get to 50% and initiate a stun. Let's look at a scenario using time stamps in HH:MM:SS:SSS. Assume the survivor has a ping of 65ms and the killer has a ping of 40ms at the time of their actions in game. Just to keep it simple, let's assume zero server processing time.
Survivor drops a pallet at 12:58:50:942
With a ping of 65ms, the pallet drop start arrives at the server at 12:58:51:007.
With our pallet drop time assumption, the server sees the pallet at 50% at 12:58:51:132.
On the killer side, they swung at some point and the hit occurs at 12:58:51:093. They see blood splatter and a scream because killer actions get instantaneous feedback as verified by a mod in one of the threads about this.
With a ping of 40ms, the killer hit gets to the server at 12:58:51:133.
Since the hit is 1ms after the stun, the stun is rewarded and the hit is cancelled.
On the killer screen, the pallet reaches 50% at 12:58:51:172. This is 39ms after the hit occurred on their screen.
So by the math, the killer with the better ping still sees the hit on their screen and has it cancelled because the server still received the stun before the hit. I believe EntitySpawn when he says he has been in games with survivors with worse ping and had his hits cancelled because the math proves that it can happen. It is not all about who has the best ping and absolutely killers with better ping can have this happen.
EntitySpawn was the killer, claims to have had a ping of 40, survivor a ping of 60. I get that. Still no proof was delivered. It's all just talk. No proof. I could claim to have had a match as killer with a ping of 20 and survivors had a ping of 200 and I got robbed of my hits through all those pallets (which I did not, but I could claim that).
Again, it's all just talk. Walls of text. No solid evidence. Calculations based on hear-say. We are on Page 2 of this discussion (in one of many discussions), yet there's no single piece of valid evidence. Looks like this is the status quo, and nobody can actually prove that this is unintended behaviour.
-
@Carth said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400922#Comment_2400922
Why would someone go to that much work when we can continue down this train of logic and say 'nope, didnt have all the info'? We don't know what the code running on the server is doing so we need to have behavior show us the actual implementation of the code. Oh and also we need to know where the server is based and what OS and version of that OS is running on it. Also the hardware of the machine, also the dependencies of DBD and also the versions of those. Also the manufacturer of the hardware. Also any kind of network blips on the day of between each client and also the server as well as the general network traffic of all networks in that area at the exact moment of the 'test'.
There's already a montage, it's just missing the most vital part, which is the latency numbers. The whole "pallet stun validation" topic is just about the latency of clients to the server. Yet, nobody actually showed proof/evidence of those numbers. It's all just claims that the latency should not have been an issue, yet they "got robbed".
Also, the "pallet stun validation" never was about "OS", "hardware of the machine", etc. just latency. Let's stick to the topic, shall we?
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400700#Comment_2400700
I never said ping didn't really matter. I said it wasn't the only thing that factors into whether or not you get the hit at the pallet. But I'll help you out on this one.
@Pizzaman it is not only about killer and survivor ping. Just because a killer player gets stunned and didn't get the hit does not mean they have worse ping than the survivor. When the actions were first pressed in real time matters, as well as length of time actions take, as well as server process time all matter in the interaction. If the pallet was dropped at the exact same time in real time that the killer swings and time to hit the survivor is the same as time for the pallet to reach 50%, the person with the better ping will win. But it is unlikely that both the survivor and killer player both press their buttons at the exact same time and I don't know what the official times are for swing to hit and pallet to 50% are but they might not be the same and probably aren't. Because of this, it is possible for a survivor with worse ping to have the pallet stun reach the server first.
Look, I'm not saying it's happening, I'm not saying it's not happening. All that is needed to understand the situation is EVIDENCE.
Take EntitySpawn's post as an example. It says that it's happening, even though there was a 40 ping and that it looks like it was not good enough. Also what about the survivors latency? If someone makes a post with a concrete information ("40 ping"), then why not just put that it into a video together with some live action and show it to the world? Clearly the number 40 must come from somewhere, why not just show that? Is it really that hard? I'm not blindly believing people that just make claims in a "post" (and until there's evidence, it's just a claim), and nobody else should either.
"Just because a killer player gets stunned and didn't get the hit does not mean they have worse ping than the survivor." Yeah, so even more important to show those numbers in the evidence *.
Again, if someone claims that he/she got robbed of a hit (or even multiple hits) while his/her latency to the server was indeed lower than the suvivors latency to the server, then why would that person not put up the evidence *? Understand, everyone can make claims by making a post. If you want get heard, provide evidence *. Everything that is said, is just a claim until there's solid evidence *. And just putting text in this forum is not evidence *.
If this is an actual issue, and people know exactly that their latency to the server is lower than the latency to the server of other players (as they claim), yet they still get robbed, then it shouldn't be too hard to put up some solid evidence *. If a person can't provide any evidence *, but still claims they got robbed that's just a big red flag to me.
* What is solid evidence in this case: a live action gameplay recording with an indication that shows the killers latency to the server and the survivors latency to the server.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400688#Comment_2400688
Ping has nothing to do with it, I made a post how my 40ping was not good enough to get hits on 60+ping and then people started ping doesnt really matter
Can you provide a link to a video that does show the latencies (killer to server and survivor to server)?
If you really want to help to resolve this (if there is something to resolve at all), then provide solid evidence. Though, to be honest, my hopes for that are pretty low.
@DelsKibara said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400688#Comment_2400688
KYF.
In KYF, the Killer is the one most likely hosting.
Meaning that the Killer has a lower ping than the survivor.
Or do you want to dispute that somehow?
"most likely hosting" reads like "I don't know for sure".
Is it there actually a consensus or even better an official statement that Custom Games are still P2P? And to give you an answer, I absolutely question everything people say in this forum. Especially in this case, people claim to have a lower ping than the survivor(s) they went against and yet we don't see any real evidence (why not just show the numbers and a video of the recorded live action to make a solid case?).
So far, all presented "evidence" is not making a case against pallet stun validation but for it.
-
@Warcrafter4 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400226#Comment_2400226
You do know this happens with sub 30 ping Vs 200+ ping survivors right?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2400221#Comment_2400221
Ping doesn't matter nor does who gets it first as this video proves. Its entirely survivor sided despite what the developers have said.
We don't see any ping indicators in the video, so how is the video proving anything at all except that the killer seems to have had worse latency to the servers than the survivor?
Do you have some solid evidence that actually proves that the killer ping to the server is lower than the affected survivor ping to the server at the very moment when the pallet stun happens (and yes, the "at the very moment" is actually very important, because we're connected via Internet, so Jitter is a thing)?
-
It's so adorable to see that there are so many new players that don't know that pallet reverse stuns existed way before the pallet stun validation.
Great to have you here!
-
Funny how killer sided even this discussion is when plenty of comments like this exist:
DeADHArD iS sO unfun to PlAy AGaInSt, because I geT robbed ....
PallET sTUn valIdatiON iS sO OP BeCaUSE i Get robbed ....
-
@theonlyreasonwhy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2389843#Comment_2389843
do you know where i could see a comparison of jane's new and old prestige?
No exactly a comparison, but old P3s here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnHEQqOA8p4
And a Screenshot of current Jane for you:
-
@Thrax said:
if you don't rely on a lunge to close the distance and lunge anyway deadhead is useless
Exactly. But there's something that's even more funny.
The killers lunge (just hold M1 and spin to outplay) itself is a version of dead hard, with every possible upside (less cooldown, speedboost in midair, basekit, rotational control, no usage condition, can be modified/buffed through perks/addons) except that it slows down momentum, yet nobody ever mentions that.
-
@PlaysByShady said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2391635#Comment_2391635
I'm gonna disagree there... survivors often get greedy and wait to drop the pallet at the last moment. That's where the punishment comes in.
Now, they're being rewarded for it.
This has nothing to do with dropping a pallet early or dropping it late.
It's all about latency between the server and the clients. The decision making process does now consider information from the killer side and the survivor side and that is done by the server.
My suggestion is to read Mercês first post again.
-
@maaadinsomniac said:
This was discussed since skins were released, will never happen.
They said they couldn't do a blood (red color) overlay for Survivor Skins. And guess what they just did with the latest Chapter Release? They introduced a blue color overlay for Survivor Skins when they get "Contaminated" by Nemesis.
It still might not happen, it's just that technically it's not impossible, never has been. BUT, it's not even that farfetched to assume that it could already be done with the tech they have in the game right now.
But I have to say that they actually improved some P3 outfits, like Janes (which probably had the least amount of blood of any P3). On the other hand, some P3s like Quentin, Tapp and Jake that were my favorites, seem a bit lacklustre now.
-
@FrndlyChnswSalzmn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2366579#Comment_2366579
No, it actually is. Killer DC's haven't been crazy until recently; sure, you'd get a Killer who DC'ed while getting bullied every now and again, but now killers are done with the BS and will just drop for any reason. Survivors made that acceptable, remember? 'If i'm not having fun i'll just quit and I don't care about everyone else'.
This is the consequence. So stop with the disingenuous 'its both sides' crap. It's not. It's one side and we all know it.
Don't project your personal issues on the whole community.
Also doesn't matter if you want to accept it or not. "We" know that it's a two-sided issue. Yes, we all know it.
-
@SasukeKun said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2335830#Comment_2335830
Thanks for you input but as you said, other people experience different things in their matches. For me, i still feel adding more life to the zombies would make it better, Nemesis could be one of the more complex killers that way which is what id want
Why would increasing the number of zombies from 2 to 4 make Nemesis a complex killer? The zombies are not even controlled by Nemesis, they are wandering around autonomously.
And when you say "adding more life to the zombies" to me it just sound like "make them stronger in a certain way" or "make them have more impact on the gameplay". Zombies are already RNG, the game needs less RNG but more skill based gameplay.
-
@BingBongMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2346801#Comment_2346801
People will complain about everything, especially if they get beaten by somebody who's better than them.
And against someone who's good at curving and timing with crack billy... woo boy they would be destroyed.
Critique of the addons was justified. Hillbilly already had a perfect basekit, chainsaw sprit map travesal (which could result in insane hook/gen pressure) and insta down capability (perfect in chases, "gen" sniping, but also for camping).
Wiping all those facts away by saying that "People will complain about everything, especially if they get beaten by somebody who's better then them" is a classical DBD forum move.
If you went against a half way decent Hillbilly with Instasaw, it was more like: beaten by somebody who used overpowered addons. Nobody who's interested in a more balanced game would challenge that.
-
@SilentPill said:
I’m sad I’ve only played on it once, but I have a few of the badges saved up so I’m gonna spam them once they are re-enabled and the DC penalty is back on.
Just out of curiosity, why wait until "the DC penalty is back on"? Wouldn't it be enough to wait until the map is re-enabled?
-
@MadLordJack said:
Wraith is weak to predropping unsafe pallets and playing every other tile relatively normally, though clearly with considerarion to his lunge.
Basically, if an m1 killer can get you there after the pallet is thrown, Wraith can get you before it's thrown.
Wraith can easily zoom around unsafe pallets with his newly discovered Formula 1 acceleration. Just uncloak, zoom and hit.
And this is kind of funny, because unsafe pallets were something a lot of killers wanted because they require "mindgaming". But the bing-bong F1 racecar doesn't need mindgames at unsafe pallets. Uncloak, zoom and hit.
-
@meatisadelicacy said:
I think a lot of people don't even realize what's going on right now. Maybe they want to save the cake for when there aren't so many being used?
My games are literally everyone brings a cake/streamer or no one does. I kinda forget because it's like, we spend 50k BP for a cake that gives us maybe 20k if we are lucky? If a few people aren't bringing them, it's not worth it.
It could also be that since people are playing different characters to unlock the crowns, they don't want to put BP into characters they don't play.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to keep cakes "for when there aren't so many being used". First, it's kind of selfish, you know that a lot of people will drop cakes (so deliberately not dropping some is basically freeloading), second, economically it also doesn't make sense.
Now is the time to get cakes in your Bloodweb with Bloodpoints, use cakes to get more Bloodpoints, and use the gained Bloodpoints to get more cakes, which in turn can be used to get you even more Bloodpoints. You should understand the pattern.
I see people saying, I'm keeping them for .... It doesn't matter, the best way to progress is to spend it now. Once the event is over, of course you'll be able to use the cakes to get more Bloodpoints, but those Bloodpoints won't get you more cakes.
So again: the time to spend cakes is now (and if you don't have cakes, spend points in the bloodweb)!
-
@LegionIsEdgy said:
Seriously doesn't she require skill to play, game sense and strong perks are required to play her, not only that but scratch marks have delay and doubling back can easily counter her. Besides with her best add-ons you need Stridor to make her good
It's not like this hasn't been discussed here already a hundred times.
If you're genuinely interested in the background of the critique regarding spirit and her game design, why don't you use the search to find those discussions?
-
@jester20k said:
Well, before dedicated servers, if the killer had a good internet connection, it was way better. The problem was lag switching killers, and it would be unplayable. Also the biggest down side was the killer was the server and if they lobby Dodged you, it could mean upwards of another 15 minute wait for a new killer server. But the hits since dedicated servers are abysmal trash.
Same experience here. P2P was quite good for me back then, in contrast to Dedicated Servers. You just had to carefully watch the ping indicator in the (Killer) Lobby. Almost never stayed in a "red" lobby (or "bad" yellow, the ones that kept going from yellow to red and then yellow again), almost never had a bad experience. Yes, there were some issues occasionally, but it was very rare.
Interaction in the P2P-era of DBD was superior to Dedicated Servers.
You didn't have to compensate for a latency that was introduced by Dedicated Servers. You could just drop a pallet whenever you wanted to. Same thing for vaults. Nowadays it's like "OK, I need to drop/vault that early, because of Dedicated Servers". Same thing with Deadhard, you could use it in ways that are just not possible anymore (I'm talking about timing DH, nothing else). Now you use it and pray that you're not exhausted on the ground.
Sad thing to see, that this kind of potential is lost in the attempt to make it a better game.
I feel like Dedicated Servers sort of averaged everything out for players. If you never had issues with P2P, then it probably made the "P2P-best case scenario" worse for you. Because if you always had lobbies with low latency, Dedicated Servers are definately worse for you now. On the other hand, it probably made the "P2P-worst case scenario" better for people that always struggled somehow with their internet connectivity.
So now we've got an average experience.
-
@RoboMojo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/254157/what-does-this-game-need-to-be-balanced
You had me until you said that you wanted Killers to have 6 perks. I mean... What? Just imagine a sweaty Nurse with surge, ruin, pop, tinkerer, corrupt and either undying or oppression. Would be borderline impossible to escape from, especially if Survivors are still stuck at 4 perks.
But he proves a point. Game balance should never be completely in the hands of the community. People really are asking for ridiculous stuff.
-
@StayDead4Once said:
Full-stop, do some simple math people, there are 4 survivors for every 1 killer. That means there is going to be a 4:1 ratio of reports going one direction. There is absolutely 0 repercussions for false reporting in this game and now that this new "auto-ban" system operates off of point based system there is going to be rampant abuse.
Just think about this logically for a moment, the entire reason they stated they are going to add this new system is to help the deal with the immense influx of reports that is causing them to overlook legitimate hackers. This assertion is very telling, there are only few valid real reasons to report someone.
Here is a link to their actual reportable offenses list.
If you take the time to actually read what they allow you to report there are very few actual reportable offenses. This either means the anti-cheat / chat filter is so utter garbage as to allow literally any hack to be used freely without detection or anything be said without filtering that they're support services are being overloaded by the frequency of valid reports OR and I think we all know the actual answer here, the vast majority of reports are false/invalid ones filed out of spite or pettiness.
In our current system, due to all of these false reports legitimate hackers get away with cheating for months before they get banned due to their human support team have to manually sift through all of these false spite reports. This leads to a worse experience for everyone but thankfully this also means the vast majority of false reports are simply thrown out and the targeted individual isn't getting banned. nor should they, no one should be banned if they haven't broken the rules.
This is not how this new system is going to work, it is going to be a point based system that automatically bans anyone who gets reported enough within a certain time period, valid or not. This is obviously extremely prone to abuse and will only serve to thrust the burden of proof from the support team to that of the individual, something that is nearly impossible for the average user. If you get banned falsely there is a VERY high likelihood you lose everything, all the time spent, all the money spent, all because someone decided to be spiteful.
THIS NEW SYSTEM IS A TERRIBLE IDEA IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY AND IS GOING TO KILL THE GAME IF LEFT AS IS, if killers start getting banned falsely for literally any reason, the que times for survivors are going to skyrocket in time. This is going to lead to people being more irritated at how long they had to wait for a match and lead to even more false report the next killer they get paired up with for literally any inconvenience.
This is a cyclical recursive loop of bullshit waiting to happen, please BHVR, I know it's hard for you, but think, PLEASE.
The problem with this auto ban system is not that there's an amplification issue of 4:1 (as you pointed out). Devs could mitigate that, by adjusting the threshold that initiates a ban (or even have a more complicated formula that e.g. weakens reports of people that belong to the same SWF, etc. .... lots of possibilites).
The real problem is, that the majority of people (which is also a majority of those that raise reports) just doesn't know what's a bannable offense and what is not. And that, in itself is a huge problem, if reports will not be double-checked by a neutral instance that actually does know the rules (a human) and what's a bannable offense. Everything will probably be based on the accuracy and truthfulness of the reporters, because they (BHVR) probably won't create a "machine" that will check video evidence.
All this reminds me of that expression "May you live in interesting times" ...
-
@some_guy1 said:
use code AD800947-01A7-4DEF-81AD-40DDC501DE50
Yes that one works and ANNIVERSARYFRAGMENTS.
The others from the chat did not.
-
@akanadi said:
why? whats the point running a killer there doesnt make you good, and if you are bad you arent learning anything from it, and its funny because most of the ppl who bring haddonfield complain about camping and tunneling, haddonfield is how to tell me youre insecure about your skill without telling me youre insecure.
Looks like there's a new rule in the Killer Rulebook for Survivors that does not allow the use of Haddonfield Map Offerings.
-
@NightmareKiller said:
I know millions of survivors are sore losers and stuff, but do they really?
Had a lot of matches in which I kill a survivor and at the end of the game they cope with "S-so what if I died? I stunned you 4 times! HA!".
Is that seriously a victory for survivors? Running from a killer for a few seconds, getting a few pallet stuns, etc is that enough to make survivors pretend they didn't just lose the whole match and got humilliated?
Because I never seen a single killer who had all 4 survivors escape and he coped with "Oh w-well but at least everyone was on death hook!" or "A-at least I kicked 3 gens!".
Even just looking at the words that you use makes me shiver ("sore losers", "cope", "humiliated"). Why would anyone be humiliated just because they lost?
And why would someone in the endgame chat respond with "S-so what if I died? I stunned you 4 times! HA!"? Doesn't make a lot of sense, unless they got provoked by you.
To me, it looks like the problem is not the people you go against. And that pretty much narrows down the problem.
-
@TGB said:
Now everyone's got, like, ACTUAL extra abilities, twelve sprints, a weird dab-dash, flying across the map, auto-revives, auto-unhooks, auto-escapes, attack negates, killer ability negates, aura negates, and just a general total disintegration of the game's base mechanics, utterly devolving into this abomination perkfest battle royale game, except one team forgot to bring 3 of their teammates.
----
I'm aware that power creep hits every game. But even so, it rarely actually mutates the game into a totally different game. You used to be able to just play your core kit, and the only thing you even had to worry about is a Meg sprint... from Meg.
But now, you have to hesitate on every single little thing. Maybe I can't swing this max range lunge attack, they might dab-dash it and I whiff. Maybe I can't hit this unhooked Survivor, they might have Borrowed. Maybe I can't look in the direction I'm walking, they might have Spine Chill. Maybe I can't leave this guy slugged on the ground for a moment, he might self-revive. It just god damn feels like every little thing is wrong. Like every decision is just trying to cut my losses. I can do this thing and get punished, or that thing and get punished more. Well, I'll do the thing I'm least punished for. But ultimately, I'm just always punished for anything I do.
I know I've made my fair share of threads today, but just holy #########, dude.
Playing Killer in this game... You know what it feels like???
It feels like I'm playing a children's game.
It feels like I'm, like... the teacher.
"Alright, kids! Let's load up some DBD!"
And they all cheer happily, "YAYYYY!" And they all get on.
And I join the game, and I'm BIG BAD SCARY MONSTER!
And the game starts, and I pop out from corners and go RAWR, but in reality, I'm just totally powerless and couldn't harm a fly if I wanted to.
And the kids all go, "AAAAHHH," and most of them don't do anything because they're like 5 years old and probably just picking their nose. But then one of them accidentally hits their left mouse button, and it bonks me on the head with a frying pan and I fall over defeated, with X's for eyes.
And I say, "WOW you did it! You defeated the big scary monster! Ice cream for EVERYONE!"
And they all scream, "YAYYYYY!! ICE CREEAAAAMMM!!!"
And it's the classic happy ending fairy tale story that the kids are accustomed to hearing.
And everyone's happy.
That's sincerely what I realized DBD is feeling like to me. That is me putting words to it.
And while you're going to great lengths to make it sound so horrifying, there are actually people that just make it work.
Did you ever think about what you're doing wrong, that they are doing right?
-
@CreamedTunaFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2187091#Comment_2187091
Just because YOU don't suffer from problems like headaches or eyestrain because of low FOV, doesn't mean fov options are not needed.
Thank you for being like a certain dev and saying accessibility options don't matter.
It may be possible that you've got headaches or eyestrain from low FOV. I'm not confirming or denying.
But it would be an issue to cater a minority and do something that will take a toll on game balance for the majority of the playerbase in the name of Accessibility. Having an FOV-Slider is not the same thing (gamebalance-wise) as having color-blind options.
-
This game needs an "FOV"-Slider as much as it needs a "Brightness"-Slider or a "Chase Music"-Slider.
Spoileralert: it doesn't need any of these.
-
@OopsAllHexes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2090849#Comment_2090849
It did release on Steam. I suppose you weren't on the Discord server when they did announcements and everything.
It was the balancing issues plus the lack of funding and Covid ruining their publisher deal that ended it for good.
"Last Year" started with a Discord exclusive release. What could possibly go wrong?
The Devs basically did not communicate with their community.
There was almost 1 year of time between the announcement that the game would be coming to Steam and the game actually coming to steam. During that time, they went completely radio silent.
And let's not talk about the last resort release of another title called "Last Year: The Nightmare".
Last Year was doomed from the very beginning. The game looked great though. Still lot's of bad management decisions ensured a really bad start and limited it's potential growth. Covid had nothing to do with it's downfall (yes, I know, we were told that there was a potential "deal" on it's way that could have "saved" LY .... spoileralert: it's highly unlikely that such a deal would have been signed anyway, cause you don't try to catch a falling knife).
-
@LazyPayday said:
I mean after all, you're supposed to entertain your consumers during the "Main event" of a show. If they make it stronger then the survivors can no longer sit down and start laughing at you for activating it.
Name fits. Lazy Bait.
-
@Nobsyde said:
oh, I always treat survivors with keys with the utmost respect.
https://clips.twitch.tv/BlazingTawdryBaguetteArsonNoSexy-6OVz8Su26pMTr-TE
( https://clips.twitch.tv/BlazingTawdryBaguetteArsonNoSexy-6OVz8Su26pMTr-TE )
Is that screaming, overacting, overexaggerating part of the usual routine, or is it just because of the key?
-
And I want to retire early.
Anybody having any other wishes?
-
You're asking the wrong question.
So let me help you:
- If you can't play a game without it being a potential health hazard to you -> don't play the game
- If you don't have a stable internet connection and use free McDonalds Wifi instead -> don't play the game
- If you feel like the game is unbalanced and full of bugs -> don't play the game
- Do you (in any other way) feel uncomfortable while playing the game -> don't play the game
If none of these points apply -> play the game
It's not that hard, right?
-
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that they try to adjust it.
But that "Work in progress" HUD looks pitiful and sad. If it were a person, you'd probably hug it, to comfort it.
-
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that they try to adjust it.
But that "Work in progress" HUD looks pitiful and sad. If it were a person, you'd probably hug it, to comfort it.
-
Why would EAC step in just because you played a certain killer (even if it were "bugged")?
EAC is not there to protect anyone from people that abuse ingame glitches.
Also, yes, you got pranked.
-
- over 2000 hours "on both sides"
- afraid of 360s as killer.
seems legit
-
Maybe a picture does help the sceptics to understand why people criticize the new UI
-
@Hopesfall said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1901549#Comment_1901549
you miss the whole point, it doesn't even matter if it's vs Trapper or not. The point was, you can see the killer across the whole f***ing map and they can do nothing about it. It's only amplified vs Trapper. It absolutely decimates Freddy when the survivor is asleep. It doesn't matter who the killer is, this perk is trash that lets you sit there with aura read across the entire map for eternity.
The killer can see you too, so the information is shared bidirectionally. To see if the killer is approaching you, you'd have to look at the killer again, which would again reveal your location. Also, you don't need to know where the killer is (as long as you know that someone else is being chased).
Regarding Freddy: excuse my lack of sympathy for Freddy players, but he has got too many tools available anyway. And OoO does not affect freddy spamming snares at tight loops to get the usual M1 after being slowed down. Also, survivors don't know which killer they will be facing, so OoO might backfire.
-
@Hopesfall said:
I don't have Object unlocked for survivors and I don't really watch survivor streamers.. but then I watched this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVWAe9Xwvsg
This perk is disgusting, this is the nonsense killers face? Pure trash perk.
For some reason I thought survivor and killer had to be looking at each other for auras to show.. but apparently not. But BBQ with 4 second aura is overpowered. Ok kids.
Imagine running around for 1 minute to disarm one trap ("true" wasn't even sure if the trapper did pick up a trap or placed a trap), instead of sitting at a gen to actually progress the game.
Also, why doesn't "true" know (at 4 min 15 sec), that there's no trap there. The usual forum gibberish is to endlessly repeat that OoO disables trappers ability and the OoO user knows everything at all times. Shouldn't "true" know that there's no trap there, if it was true that the OoO user knows everything at all times?