Power_Guy
Power_Guy
About
- Username
- Power_Guy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Maelstrom10 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2360843#Comment_2360843
I disagree on the kyf for full bp, though i think bot matches should.
With bot matches, there is a 0% chance of a farm, even if they are arguably far easier then normal matches
with kyf matches, i could easily get a 5 stack together with bbq/wglf, and farm endlessly and incredibly efficently and quickly. it would completely break the bloodpoint economy, and whilst i would very much find that nice and so would every other player, that wouldn't be healthy for the game tbh
hell someone could easily get max bloodpoints by simply coding a bot to click the ready up over and over button, and play with a second account. Equip lethal pursuer and finish a match in 60s in order to get around 10,000 bp without bbq/other influences
What BP economy? You can't trade BP. You can't sell items for BP to other players. There is no BP economy.
-
I can't kill someone I can't find. And why would I waste time trying to find that one person I never see, if I keep finding the other 3 Survivors?
It's not my job to throw the match hunting for the Immersed Survivor just because the other 3 might find it unfair that she gets the hatch. I'll hook her if I find her, but I'm not keeping a running tally of who I've hooked & ignoring everyone else to spread the hooks out. If I find someone; I hook them.
Not my fault if someone goes out of their way to do nothing but hide, and I have no obligation to write down who I've hooked and who I have not hooked to 'play fair'.
-
@MadLordJack said:
People hate NOED because the perk is weaker than it's absolutely, utterly bullcrap "counterplay" that people legitimately love pretending exists and hate it when you point out that people play by themselves and have no way of sharing information and therefore no way to know how much time they are wasting, especially since they tied a totem counter to a perk.
And the perk itself is literally just a free kill to make killers feel better and not actually help do anything. So yeah, no wonder it's hated.
Ah yes, the 'free kill' BS. The scream of lazy Survivor mains the game over.
The Killer kept at least one totem alive until end game.
The Killer then find someone.
The Killer then chased them.
The Killer then hit them.
But it's a 'free kill'. 😂
I forgot that NoED apparently magically down a Survivor and teleports them onto a hook. 'Free kill', rofl. 😂😂😂
That's one of the lamest excuses Survivors use, up there with 'The Killer already lost! 😥' as if they can dictate that the game ends when 5 gens pop, not when the gates open.
The bottom line is that only bad Survivors whine about NoED. The ones who want to sit on gens for 5 minutes and speedrun the match. The ones who run the full meta while in a SWF sweat squad and then screech like parrots when NoED procs because they refuse to do totems. The lazy ones who see a totem 3 feet away, but bang out the gen instead, then get chased away by the Killer.
But, of course, that's not THEM being lazy; it's NoED being 'OP', or 'Unfun', or whatever buzzword excuse they invent this week to dodge blame.
-
@konchok said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2375208#Comment_2375208
Is it really though? You've already killed 1 survivor. You know exactly which survivor is getting a bonus to their action speed and only 1 survivor can get the bonus? Why should tunneling out one survivor be an automatic win?
Why should one Survivor dying mean another deserves a whopping 25% increase to his gen speeds?
You're question is sitting on one incredibly wrong mindset; that tunneling needs to be punished. So you've made an idea that rewards Survivors for one dying, as a way to punish the Killer.
This idea is OP. Survivors don't deserve an action speed increase on anything just because someone died. Also; this would punish Killers that don't tunnel. if a Survivor offs himself on first hook; Someone now has an OP bonus.
Survivor just plays bad and gets seen repeatedly? Welp; now someone has an OP bonus! (Though some Survivors claim a Killer not ignoring an unhooked Survivor for 50 minutes is 'tunneling')
No. These 'We need to punish camping!' threads need to stop. Survivors need to get it through their heads that they don't deserve unhooks just because they stomp their feet and scream, and the Killer does not have to 12 hook every game.
-
@konchok said:
The reason why tunneling is so effective is because all action speeds are effectively reduced by a minimum of 25 percent once a survivor is killed.
I think a potential buff to sole survivor : increase the speed for repairing generators and healing actions by 25 percent whenever a survivor is sacrificed or killed as long as you're the obsession, whenever the obsession is killed become the obsession (if more than 1 survivor is running this perk, the obsession is chosen at random)
This would effectively mean that if you ran this perk and the killer tunneled one survivor. You would be able to heal and work generators 25 percent faster with one survivor dead , 50 percent faster with 2 and 75 percent faster with 3. It also has some counter-play because if the obsession changes the killer knows that you are running this perk.
That is an OP perk. You're literally removing the pressure the Killer applies from killing someone.
People need to get it through their heads that camping and tunneling have legit uses, and making OP perks or BS 'punishments' will never sit well. You need perks that encourage the Killer to not camp, like BBQ and Devour Hope.
Not half-baked punishments and perks that remove pressure.
-
@konchok said:
It's funny to me that the counter arguments for this suggestion basically boil down to, "No, then I couldn't choose the spot where I would like to camp the survivor."
But I do agree that camping hooks is for better or worse an intended mechanic.
That's because strategic hook placement is part of securing kills mid- and end-game. Only salty Survivors ignore that.
-
@Firellius said:
I am strongly in favour of anti-camping mechanisms, but I don't think this one is the right one.
The problem is that the survivor could be transported closer to another survivor, which would make the rescue very quick and very easy, greatly reducing the value the killer gets out of hooking someone, even if they weren't going to camp in the first place. This idea would, sadly, cause a lot of collateral damage to killers that are trying to play normally, so I don't think this is a good idea.
Yeah. Imagine hooking someone in the EGC, and their hook teleports in front of the opened gate.
Free unhook AND escape! That's a 'no' from me for OP's idea.
-
No. Because then Survivors would bodyblock, knowing the Killer would get a debuff if they were to hit them.
Just look at how many Survivors bodyblock because of Borrowed Time; I think most of them would also bodyblock if they knew the Killer would be punished for smacking them for it.
-
'Proxy camping'. Lol.
Survivors: You can't be near the hook!
Killer: Okay. *Walks away, only to come back when someone's unhooked, or throw their ranged weapon at the hook.*
Survivors: Reeee! That's 'proxy' camping!
Is the Killer not supposed to go anywhere near an unhooked Survivor until they fill out some kinda forms in triplicate? Is there some magical time limit Killers are supposed to wait before going back to an unhook? These made up terms amuse the heck out of me.
-
@justbecause said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2374474#Comment_2374474
And yes I do decide when it ends and it ends right now, wanna bet?
Oh look; I can still reply. Seems it did not end right when you wanted it to.
But on topic; enjoy being wrong. Hopefully you will learn that you disagreeing does not magically make you correct, and opinions can be wrong when the facts don't line up with said opinions.
Bye! 🖐️
-
@justbecause said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2374464#Comment_2374464
And I think you're wrong now we agreed to disagree thank you and goodbye
That's not how facts work.
Fact: You can be banned for DCing.
Fact: Camping, tunneling, and slugging are tactics and tools a Killer can use.
Fact: You're wrong. And 'agreeing to disagree' does not change these facts. You don't get to say 'I think you're wrong; bye!' and walk away thinking you have a point when you don't.
And if people pointing out YOU ARE WRONG bothers you; stop replying. But you don't get to decide when the discussion ends just because you want to run away with the last word.
-
@justbecause said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2374447#Comment_2374447
Alright I still disagree with you now what? Will you agree to disagree with me because we don't think the same or you gonna keep talking to wall? What you gonna do if I don't agree with you than say that we disagree? Sue me to the entity? As I said give it a rest have a nice day
Ok. You disagree. You're still wrong. Facts don't care if you disagree; it does not change that they are facts.
Enjoy being wrong.
-
@justbecause said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2374425#Comment_2374425
Dc isn't bannable buddy people need to leave for multiple reasons and devs won't ban them for that and campinh and tunelling and slugging is accepted tactic by devs true so is dead hard one of devs said there's nothing wrong with dead hard yet what we see daily on this forums? "Pls nerf fead hard" they simply don't know what's healthy or not for this game proved many times as I already said up there look at their nerf of ds and look at the nerf community made for ds? Which one is more health the one they made so that u can have 1 minute of free objective or the new one community suggested ?if u ask me it's the community one.
Playerbase often has more info about game state because of playing every day which devs don't have time to or doesn't play often they work on game not in game and they always ask for feedback because that's their source of info from community that plays the game.
And I will once again say this agree to disagree we disagree and that's it no point of discussion (well if ppl here weren't thirsty of drama like you)
If you DC enough, the game times you out AND THEN BANS YOU.
Using my brain and this magic thing called 'logic'; this tells me that DCing is bannable. 😱Shocking, right?
And while the devs can change rules and perks based on feedback; until they do, the rules as written state Tunneling/camping/slugging are tactics.
You don't get to say 'Well, they MIGHT change them in the future, so they're exploits now! Agree to disagree!'
So, again, You are wrong. This is not a differing opinion we 'agree to disagree' on. This is fact. You don't get to say 'I'm not wrong because it's my opinion'. My opinion could be that the sky is pink with magenta polka-dots; I'm wrong.
You are wrong. There is no agreeing to disagree. DCing is bannable if you do it enough. Tunneling/camping/slugging are not exploits or 'not the way the game was intended to be played'. And you trying to shut down the discussion with 'no point in discussing' does not magically make you correct.
-
@God_Prof said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2373680#Comment_2373680
Yeah typically that's the anticheat works. But it seems that EAC is not detecting all cheaters by updated patterns, but only just checkout new reported suspects. The facts that There wasnt just a single banwave follow this claim.
And Thats the reason we believe ingame report not much. But also BHVR needs more solution.
Proper anticheats don't 'banwave' because then the people who make cheats will know 'My newest cheat has been detected' and update it/make a new one.
Instead, they ban as they detect them, which combined with older cheats being detected, muddies the water and makes it harder for cheat makers to know if their cheat was detected, or HOW it was detected. And that second part makes it harder for them to know what to change.
-
No. Survivors should not have a list of perks that 100% counter Killer perks.
Though I saw this coming when they made Iron Will 100% counter Stridor. Now Survivors want perks to shut down every perk a Killer has.
-
@justbecause said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2374269#Comment_2374269
Again agree to disagree but you keep writing paragraphs
You don't 'agree to disagree' when someone (you, in this case) is factually wrong.
You're wrong; DCing is a bannable offence. Camping, tunneling, and slugging are not.
You're wrong; Camping, tunneling, and slugging are not 'exploits' or 'bugs'.
You're wrong; camping, tunneling, and slugging are accepted tactics.
You're wrong; the devs decide what is and is not against the rules.
You. Are. Wrong. We don't 'agree to disagree' because that would mean you have a valid point. You don't.
You. Are. Wrong.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2373684#Comment_2373684
Here comes the "DC penalties won't make this necessary" counterpoints.
Brace yourself.
They should do both; DC penalty, and prevent the Hatch from opening.
Screw over both people in a DC-For-Hatch sandwich. 😁
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2373762#Comment_2373762
Good luck getting outplayed by the better players with 3000ms ping who can hit you from a mile away then.
Good luck playing once you're banned for DCing, once the penalty is turned back on.
The fact that you think rage-quitting & ruining the game for others is somehow justified tells me all I need to know about you. 🤙
-
@Thrax said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2373731#Comment_2373731
Many people think it is selfish to camp and tunnel before even one gen is done. If the killer can be selfish and uncaring about the experience others are having why can't survivors? Get over your double standard.
Camping and tunneling are tactics.
DCing is being a baby AND breaking the rules.
No double standard here. Try again, little boy. 😂
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2373731#Comment_2373731
How can you fight being unhooked at the killer's face without BT? How can you fight getting hit from 3 meters away by VPN killers? Some things just can't be fought by any other means save for DC, the ultimate weapon of the wronged.
Again; DCing is not a 'weapon of the wronged'.
It's the tool of a toddler flipping the table because they're losing. DCers are selfish babies who can't accept losing, so they invent excuses & blame everyone but themselves while they quit the game.
Rofl 'Weapon of the wrong'. How deluded.
-
' proceeded to camp the basement ensuring that all of us got hooked '
Wow, is there some new Killer tech that forces Survivors to walk into the basement when they know he is there? Some new perk that physically forces them off of gens and drags them into the basement?
Oh, no, no there is not. it's just Survivors whining that they deserve unhook chances & that it's the Killer's fault when they walk towards his hook like lemmings.
-
@Junylar said:
DC is the only tool a lone sole has to oppose injustice in this game.
Or they can NOT be a selfish jerk and NOT DC.
Just sayin'. Anyone who DCs is the villain, not some sort of warrior fighting the good fight.
Suck it up, fight that Killer/Perk/Map you don't like like a big boy, and DO. NOT. DISCONNECT!
-
If someone DCs, the hatch should just not open. Tough cookies for the final survivor, but 99% of the time, a late-game DC is to give hatch.
Just prevent it from opening/appearing, and the final Survivor is hosed. They can cry on their DC buddies shoulder after they're fed to the Entity.
-
No anti-cheat is flawless, and the company that runs EAC is always looking at reports and finding new hacks/cheats. They then update EAC, and it can detect these new cheats.
But no program can intuitively detect new cheats until told 'This is a cheat'. We lack the way to code a program to determine 'This is a cheat' on its own, like a human can.
-
@ringwinning said:
I'm for the DC penalty, but I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about it that they believe it's fine to get the penalty for something like the "session expired" errors (is that even an error?) when the person is clearly playing but it just forcefully DCs you. How would you go about circumventing that kind of frustration for a player that is/was genuinely playing and had no intention of disconnecting no matter how the game was going?
You can't make a flawless program, since no program will know if it's a program crash, or someone force-closing the program.
But, if a game is stable enough, program crashes are rare (hence why the DC penalty is off at the moment), so it's more likely to catch people wussing out instead of people crashing.
This is said in a general sense of all games with a DC penalty, not DBD alone.
-
'Moris bypass D.Strike'.
Well..Yeah, if you don't use D.Strike before you're on death hook.
Or if the Killer never tunnels you, so it never procs.
Or if you do anything, since that turns it off since, again, you were not tunneled.
Wait, does that mean they just complained about not being tunneled, then being mori'd?
-
@DaddyFatSacks420 said:
That’s fine if you feel that seeing the killers aura is more important. you could have started with that(literally not mentioned at all in your first post)... And I actually mostly agree that knowing where the killer is, is important. I just feel like all I need is a quick flash of their aura (see their location and direction they’re traveling) that’s why I feel like the added couple seconds extra of seeing their aura is unnecessary. I’m not really sure how any extra time the hook is broken would lead to slugging/how is it any different than where it sits now? And I’m not taking anything out of context it just gets confusing when you try to put qualifiers on something unary, I misunderstood your first post because of this.
Fair enough. But you also need to think about this perk in a pack of 4: What if all 4 Survivors run it?
Survivor 1: Gets hooked.
Survivor 2: Gets hooked near that broken hook.
Survivor 3: Runs to that 2 hook zone, gets hooked nearby.
Survivor 4: Same thing.
And that's just 1 hook each. And now we have a 4 hook dead zone. Using your perk change, those hooks could be gone for upwards of 3:20.
More likely 2:00, if you factor in chases.
That's a large dead zone, for at least 2 minutes, where the Killer cannot actually bring any Survivors to a hook. Survivors will bodyblock, or run Sabo with a Purple Toolbox to break whichever far away hook he goes for.
So now he slugs, because he knows that picking someone up means they wriggle free.
And before you say 'Well, that takes a dedicated group to do!"; Yes, you are right, but with any perk, you have to balance for the strongest the perk can be. The most damage it can do. You don't shrug off things like 'outliers' or 'not going to happen much'. Because it WILL happen. And those it happens too will be miserable.
Survivors will scream about being slugged, and Killers will scream about being forced to slug because hooks are broken.
And, not to poke a dead horse, but what about the people running the perk for the information? Just because you feel 3 seconds is enough does not mean others do.
The idea is interesting, but I don't think it needs this change. The hook time is just right, and the information is more important, IMO.
-
@Sadsnacks said:
The only people who get upset about dcs are sweaty killer mains. As a survivor if one or more people dc it means youre either getting a farming match as a result or a very quick over and done with match as a result. As survivor you can move on pretty easily. Its the sweaty killer mains who get salty because it robs them of more points and ruins their experience more than anyone elses because it becomes a game of shooting fish in a barrel or theyre forced to farm instead of camping and tunneling everyone.
Congrats on the attempted attack on 'Sweaty Killer mains' but you're wrong.
Keep trying to demonize one side, though. 🙄
-
@DaddyFatSacks420 said:
I see I actually misunderstood you. It’s just 3 minutes. In fact it’s just as much a 3 minute minimum as it is a maximum as it stands right now. So why don’t you get off your high horse “Minimum 3 minutes is disgusting”, it already is a minimum of 3 minutes!!!
and 220 seconds was just a thought... and that would be only 40 seconds more max than it sits now. Most people probably don’t know have much experience with how Breakdown can change the dynamic of a match but 3 minutes is decent but it’s not as long as you might think if you’re not used to seeing the perk actually being used
Let me put it another way; Anything more than 3 minutes is unneeded and would lead to slugging, which Survivors already complain about. And a static 3 minutes is fine, whereas anything over 3 minutes is overkill. Hence '3 minutes being minimum is disgusting', as I said. You're taking my comment out of context to attack it.
3 minutes is fine, when it's not the minimum of 3 tiers. Saying '3 minutes is the minimum because it's also the maximum' is taking my comment wildly out of context to create a strawman to attack.
On top of that, it's the information that's more important. Knowing where the Killer is is more important than having a hook broken for longer.
That is why I disagree.
-
Me disagreeing does not mean I don't know anything about the perk.
Breakdown is fine. You don't need hooks to stay broken longer. The important part is knowing where the Killer is.
Again; as I said in my input you ignored to talk down to me, making the hook break for a MINIMUM 3 minutes is disgusting. It leads to Killers slugging when Survivors cause a Dead Zone. Then Survivors blast Killers for slugging.
Get off your high horse. You're not better or smarter than people just because you have 'OMG So many hours!' 🙄 and...You know what? No; I don't need to explain why someone disagreeing does not automatically 'not know what they are talking about'.
Your idea is bad. I gave my feedback as to why I think so. Check your attitude.
-
I rather like this.
-
I think Self-Care should just rewards users for healing others by saving charges to speed up healing on oneself afterwards.
But I made that idea yesterday and I guess folks did not agree. Ah well.
-
So you want to buff the hook breaking from 3 minutes maximum to 3 minutes minimum? No. Matches barely last 5-7 minutes. I don't want a hook broken for the entire match, or Survivors would make dead zones where I have to slug them, then whine that I slugged them.
And you don't get to tell people to not reply just because you don't want to hear opposing viewpoints; this is a public forum.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2371508#Comment_2371508
There are a number of problems with this thinking and reasoning though:
- A lot of this is subjective.There are so many varibles in whether or not a killer succeeds in a match. Their oponents (SWF or solos) is definitely one of them but by no means the only one. Skill, perks, add-ons, the map, connection speed etc all play a role too. What different people consider a win is also a factor. Moreover, what makes an "information-based killer" an information-based killer? What one person considers to be one might not align with another's views.
- It's simply not true. Please find these three examples of the developers saying that SWF isn't a problem. They know that there are balance issues - it was them who proposed the idea of bringing solo to the same level as SWF and balancing around that. The disparity between the strength of solos, SWF and killers is something that is actively being worked on all of the time, whether you see it or not.
- Anecdotal. Making a huge change to how SWF operates (such as a separate queue or removing it entirely) is a decision that should not be taken likely. If such a change were to be made, I'd like to see it supported by facts and evidence in addition to subjective viewpoints. Opinions and experiences are by no means obsolete, but on their own do not justify such a large change. Kill/escape rates of solo, SWF and so-called "information-based killer[s]" should be considered too - something which you do not possess.
- Generally bad reasoning. There are a number of better solutions to this problem that I'm sure you can find elsewhere on the forums. Your idea of removing or changing matchmaking for SWF is flawed and I surmise would not be well received. You have raised a legitemate issue with the game here but the proposed solution is just bad.
I can't remember where it was, but the devs have basically said that SWFs are not escaping a noticeable amount over solo-Q's.
Given they are now buffing solo-Q to SWF levels; it seems they may not have had complete data, or were ignoring it. 🤔 No shade on the devs, but these are the same people who spent YEARS ignoring people who said 'Change the struggle mechanic; it PHYSICALLY HURTS!', and their only excuse was 'We created this; it won't be changed.'
And then they changed it, but only after years of complaints.
The moral of that being that the devs are very slow to admit mistakes. Mistakes like the Struggle Mechanic, or SWFs.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2371471#Comment_2371471
Except there's nothing to address. Your point is mere speculation about what the developers will/won't do. You made a suggestion, I (and others) pointed out it won't work and then you failed to address that and instead said "SWFs make Killers miserable", "SWF is a colossal mistake" and that "the devs won't balance around SWF, so it almost has to go". That's it - that's your point in a nutshell.
There's no real logic or reason underpinning your comments, it's pretty much entirely emotional (which isn't inherently bad but is a poor thing to base major game/balance changes on). I'd be happy to respond if you gave some substance actually conducive to responding to so please don't make it out as if I'm just running away from the conversation.
My comments are based on a pattern we have already seen for 5 years:
- Devs say SWF is not that bad.
- Devs continue to make Killers that SWFs walk all over
- People point out that SWF squads are stronger than Killers.
- Devs say SWF is not that bad
- Devs make another information-based Killer.
- SWFs walk all over it.
- People point out that SWF squads are OP.
- Devs say they're not that bad.
- Devs nerf a Killer.
- SWFs walk all over it.
-
Base Kit and make it so it stacks in intensity every time she hits a Survivor with a hatchet. Not M1; it has to be with a thrown hatchet.
Would encourage Huntresses to use their power, would reward them for being accurate, and would only affect Survivors she has hit.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2371465#Comment_2371465
This is a huge amount of assumption to be basing your point on. Next.
Ah yes; the age-old defense of 'I will not address anything and tell people to move on, because I have no defense'. 😂
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2371451#Comment_2371451
I never said SWF was balanced in it's current state, just that your solution to the problem isn't viable. This entire response really doesn't address that concern whatsoever.
I was pointing out that the devs won't balance around SWF, so it almost has to go or be seperated.
Sure; they will buff solo-Q's to SWF levels...and then keep giving Killers middling Killers based on how the game was played back before SWF. Not a single Killer has taken SWF & communication into account since SWF as added, so why would we think that will change in the future?
Survivors will get the solo-Q buff, and then everyone can continue to walk all over Killers being made for an information blackout that has not existed in years.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2371438#Comment_2371438
This is a terrible take.
SWF represents a huge portion of the survivor playerbase. Removing it would hurt A LOT of players who simply play casually with their friends - not the SWF bully squads you're describing. Solo queue, as it stands, is a miserable experience so I predict a lot of former SWF players would likely just stop playing survivor altogether should it be removed.
Adding a separate mode is also a poor solution. Judging by how negatively you've described the killer experience of versing SWF, no killers would opt to play against them - causing painfully long queue times.
In both instances, you're forcing a significant number of players away from the game.
The developers said a while ago that they planned on increasing solo queue to the same level as SWF and then balancing killers around that, which is a much better idea than your so-called "truth".
'Judging by how negatively you've described the killer experience of versing SWF, no killers would opt to play against them'
That says to me that SWFs make Killers miserable. If SWF was not flawed, then Killers would not want to avoid it en mass.
To make SWF bearable, they would need to rework so many Killers. On top of that, they would have to admit SWF is a problem (which they don't).
And because they refuse to admit SWF is a colossal mistake, they keep making Killers and powers that work better in an information blackout (Ghostface springs to mind) while ignoring that such Killers or powers are almost garbage once people jump into an SWF.
Basically; until the devs admit that SWF is as powerful as it is, they won't actually balance Killers around the problems SWF brings. Thus, we will keep getting middling to bad Killers that SWF squads wipe the floor with.
-
@Shaped said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2371416#Comment_2371416
Swf is strong no doubt when the team gets serious.
But, have you stoped to think what would happen if swf is removed or nerfed in any way?
I have a feeling that you didn't. You got emotional over a bad game (or more) and came to rant without thinking of consequences of your proposal.
People would get used to not using SWF, as it was before SWF existed.
Some sweat and Depip Squads would leave, sure.
Or they can make it a separate mode, so Killers sick of being EZ'd by squads no longer have to deal with them. And I'm guessing some bully squads would still leave.
So?
Also; I have not played in a week or more, due to the DCs. SO this is not me being salty. The truth is not always salt.
-
@Customapple0 said:
Play nice then the player won’t feel the need to DC.
Ah, the age-old 'It's everyone else's fault if I DC'.
DCers will always DC. They will also always find a reason to blame everyone else for their garbage behavior. All I have to do is look at the scrubs who DC when they are first downed; no one 'played mean' then.
-
@Shaped said:
This will be interesting.
Nothing I said is wrong, so I'm curious as to how SWF exploiters will defend it.
-
@HEXSLAYER999 said:
In the long run I feel like it would be better for the devs anyways. Less reason to constantly have to buff/debuff and balance killers/perks/etc.
Yeah. It drives me nuts when people claim 'SWF does not do much!'
That claim is actively ignoring the fact that this game is built around Survivors lacking information:
- Not knowing who the Killer is at first (Not knowing to avoid Trapper's traps until you see him. This stops happening in a SWF group; one person sees Trapper, everyone knows to watch their feet.)
- Totems. In a non-SWF; one person seeing your totem means one person knows where it is. In a SWF; one person seeing a totem means everyone in the SWF knows where it is.
- Camping/Perks like Insidious. No SWF: Can hide near the hook & ambush. SWF: "The Killer went behind the wall to my left and stopped. Be careful there.'
- Gens, or saving your friend? No SWF: 'I don't know if anyone else is going for the save!' (Three people end up near the hook, meaning no one is on gens). SWF: 'This gen is at 70%, so I'll keep working while you go save the guy on the hook.' (The Killer has now lost the pressure hooking a Survivor is supposed to give him.)
- End Game Risks. Non-SWF: I COULD go save that guy, but if I get downed afterwards; will he save me? Should I just leave? SWF: I will save you, so keep struggling. And I know our third SWF buddy will save me if I go down.
And this is not listing each and every Killer power or perk that is rendered useless, or close to useless, when SWFs have voice comms.
-
SWF should just be a separate queue. I know it would split the player base but then the devs would see how hated SWF is.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2370811#Comment_2370811
NOED, in its current form, does -not- encourage survivors to do totems. Paradoxically, doing totems benefits NOED more often than it hurts it.
You keep saying 'NoED does not encourage doing totems because Survivors don't want to/might not find them all'. People will invent any reason to try changing or nerfing NoED.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2370858#Comment_2370858
I'm not really concerned with my idea, well, I am, but I don't care if nothing comes of it.
Just butthurt about how people both want Totems to be cleansed by Survivors but at the same time don't want them to be Cleansed. It's just freakin' illogical. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
We want totems cleansed, but we don't think Survivors should get some sort of spectator that can literally point out where they are.
The time spent trying to find them is what works in the Killer's favor. How do you not understand that? If Survivors just instantly knew where they were, then Killers lose that bonus and the totems get cleansed that much faster.
Ain't hard to understand.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2370811#Comment_2370811
Sounds like you really want Survivors on Totems, huh... "That's just nerfing hexes"
You are really just completely butthurt over virtually everyone not liking your idea that you've made 2 threads about, huh?
-
No. NoED is fine. The point of NoED is to be an unknown threat that pushes Survivors to stop doing gens. It was a bandaid fix to the 'genrush'.
If you change it, you remove that threat, and Survivors will just sit on gens, then leave. It, literally, has to stay what it is to make Survivors feel threatened enough to hunt for totems. And even then; many Survivors would rather do every gen ASAP, get hit with NoED, and then whine.
-
@JawsIsTheNextKiller said:
I think Self-care is fine. How some people use it may be questionable, but from a killers perspective, it's nice to have a bit of breathing room. From a survivors perspective, it really can help when you are the last survivor left making lots of injured noises and don't want to be a one hit down when you run for the door.
And it is not reasonable to bring a med-kit to every single match.
Oh, I think it's fine...ish, as well. I hear Survivors hating on it, so I figured I'd try to create a version of the perk that both contributes to the team, and reduces the time spent hiding in a corner while someone is on a hook.