Raconteurminator
Raconteurminator
About
- Username
- Raconteurminator
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,504
- Last Active
Comments
-
This isn't a slippery slope as much as it's a whole water slide.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533151#Comment_3533151
what do you mean?
Generators are solid objects. If a generator can be pushed and pulled around the map, they can be pushed and pulled into places where they can block off loops and doors. For example, the generator in the toilets of the Meat Plant isn't far from the only way out of the room. With the way collision is, you could probably block half the door and trap the Killer inside while allowing Survivors to come and go.
-
@Rudjohns said:
I have 1 solution:
as soon as there are only 3 gens left, survivors are able to push/pull gens
they can only push/pull in 4 directions and on flat terrain
survivors can push/pull 0.5m/s of a 0% progress generator
The more progress the generator has, the heavier and slower it gets
2 survivors can push/pull the same generator, increasing the speed to 0.7m/s
I don't know, the number may need a tweak but the fundaments are presented
The first thing Survivors would do is find the quickest route to block the Killer into a dead end. You wouldn't even have to try too hard on some maps.
-
Isn't Nostromo Wreckage the smallest map in the game?
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3532572#Comment_3532572
Wesker is literally a killing machine who survived a Tyrant stab, got collapsed under giant steel beams, injected with his own virus to poison him, tanked 2 rocket launchers, survived uroborous and fell into lava and that STILL didn’t kill him.
Wesker would punch a hole through Michaels heart
People tend to forget that Wesker is actually hilariously overpowered. Canonically, he moves fast enough to dodge bullets at point-blank range.
-
This year at a non-specific point.
-
Of course, what we all need when there are already 400,000 topics on the subject is another topic with the same talking points.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3530593#Comment_3530593
Updated the spherical distance calculation to a separate height check, as folliws:
If the killer is 1.8m (or 1 Nemesis) above or below (in the y axis) a hooked survivor, EBT charges are modified by -2c/s, with a minimum of 0.5c/s. This is to account for indoor maps with multiple floors, but also addressing camping around upstairs hooks in maps like Garden Of Joy and Eyrie of Crows, and camping the entrance downstairs hooks in basement.
Cheers for the feedback!
Nemesis is my new favourite unit of measurement.
It seems like a perfectly workable idea, it's just sad there isn't any way to actually test it. I'd be quite interested to see what tweaks would be made after testing.
-
@UndeddJester said:
There were only 2, not sure what you're talking about...
Nah seriously 1 and 2 were excellent, can't really pick between them cause they both hit their strengths perfectly. 1 is the horror/thriller masterpiece, and 2 nails the action/thriller masterpiece.
3 makes the fatal mistake of killing off Newt and and Hicks offscreen. These 2 characters provided us with such a good story ark and emotional payoff for Ripley, going from the untrusting, resentful, fearful survivor who is emotionally cut off from the world after finding out her daughter died... to the heroic, determined, badass mother figure who fought off the damned Queen... Regardless of recent attempts to rewrite history, this was a horrific mistake and puts a teally bitter pill in the audiences mouth before the movie even starts... and as time goes on the film keeps getting more and more hopeless... its so hopeless it's hard to be invested in her escape because she can't escape... and ofc ultimately she doesn't.... so the film falls flat as just a "well... that sucked..."
4 is a good popcorn film. If you switch your brain off and just go with it you can enjoy it. Characters are colourful and interesting, if not particularly deep, and you get some really badass entertaining moments... like water scene for example is really cool... Xeno-sharks 😅
Everything else does more harm than good... but to conclude... I enjoy Alien more as a horror fan, even the outdated low budget moments like air vent jazz hands... but I'm more entertained and invested in the characters in Aliens.
I like it when people say exactly what I'm thinking so I don't have to spend the time writing it down. It rarely happens, but it's very convenient when it does.
The worst part of 3 is that it retroactively makes 2 worse. 4 was a mixed bag but Ron Pearlman mostly made it work.
-
I treat Aliens how I treat Terminator.
1, 2, mostly forget the rest exist.
-
@NAERUUU said:
Scooby doo should replace jonesy ...
If you want to really start a riot, replace Jonsey with Scrappy instead.
-
@Biscuits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3530640#Comment_3530640
All you did was come in here and go, "No matter what numbers you get, they will never satisfy me". I knew from the first comment you were here to argue.
No. Simply put, a handful of games will not give a reliable indicator of what Xeno's kill rate is. That's not me, that's literally how statistics work - you take the largest sample possible. The fact you didn't even answer a reasonable question tells me you've got results from 5-6 games tops.
The 90% kill rate was your leading point, I just wanted to know how many games you played to get that. I don't want to argue, you don't want to argue - then drop it and stop replying.
-
@Biscuits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3530616#Comment_3530616
This forum is for feedback. If I wanted to argue I would have posted it in general.
And if you didn't want to risk me giving you an answer you didn't like, you shouldn't have asked me a question.
-
@Biscuits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3530582#Comment_3530582
What number of games would satisfy? I will just keep playing until I reach that number.
I mean, we're talking hundreds, if not a over a thousand games, before your 90% kill rate statement has any weight to it. Anything less isn't going to produce remotely reliable results.
-
I think it's 99% of the way there. Not a fan of it being a sphere, because like you said, it can punish Killers that aren't camping. Sort the sphere issue and you're left with a really solid idea.
-
Out of interest, statistics from over how many games?
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529857#Comment_3529857
You haven't actually provided any details yourself. You just keep saying "you are wrong". obviously the things i propose would require tons of testing. That is what PTB is for, this game also can have patches. Its not like they change it, and then never change anything ever again.
What i'm saying is, the game would be in a much healthier state for ALL players, survivors, killers, new players, veteran players and everyone in between, if the game was balanced around going for lots of chases and getting lots of hooks, instead of just rushing for a kill as fast as possible.
I've explained why I don't think the ideas, based on the information you've given (see: very little), would work. It's incredibly disingenuous to reduce my responses to, "You're wrong." I can't have a conversation with myself, which is what I may as well have been doing with the amount of information you've volunteered and your placeholder responses.
You: Here's my vague idea to balance the game, and here's a small amount of specific information.
Me: Based on the specific information you've given, I don't see it working because...
You: Well, we could just [literally re-balance the entire game] to make it work.
I can't really do much with that, I'm afraid, but good luck with it. Knowing no matter what I say will be reduced to, "You're wrong," I have no real desire to continue this conversation.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529189#Comment_3529189
That's where you are wrong, it isn't about generator speeds in a vacuum. It is about the generator speed to chase time ratio. If survivors can do gens in 30 seconds, but a chase and a hook takes you 5 seconds, then it doesn't matter how fast the gens go.
I actually want to live in a world where survivors spend LESS time on gens, and more time moving around the map and interacting with the killer.
You can achieve this by nerfing certain setups and tiles to be more manageable, and by giving survivors a secondary objective, such as (find a generator part before repairing a generator) and now you can make gen times actually shorter. Rather than sit and hold m1 for 90 seconds, you spend the same 90 seconds to repair a gen, but you do so by moving around the map, finding a generator part, taking it to the generator, THEN spending some much shorter amount of time "holding m1" on the gen, but you still spent the same amount of time on the gen. And in moving around the map, you increase the odds of you running into, and thus interacting with, the killer.
This is just one idea of many, but there are plenty of ways you can handle this. The problem is you are looking at gen times in a vacuum, when again, it is about the ratio between how long the survivor objective takes to complete, to how long the killer one takes to complete.
I'm sorry, but your entire argument just seems so nebulous to me. "My idea would work because we could just [do a nondescript thing] to balance [non-specific area of a non-specific map for every Killer]." I'm trying to focus on actual details, but your responses are, "It doesn't matter about X if Y." All I can do is focus on a few specific things, like generator speeds, because that's all you've given me. The rest of your ideas and suggestions remain firmly in your head where I can't see them. I'm just responding to what I can see, friend.
-
@saintjimmy456 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529219#Comment_3529219
If those people weren't here there'd be like twelve people left and it would take 2 hours to get into a game.
Oh, I meant it more as we all just start getting along. I didn't mean we push them all into a volcano or something. I mean, we could, but I'm going to tell people it was your idea.
-
Sometimes I like to think what this community would be like without all the pointless Them and Us tribalism.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528626#Comment_3528626
Care to explain further?
The balance you want to achieve is done by slowing the game to a crawl, to the point of stagnation even. If you wanted to balance generator speeds around Killers being required to get 8 hooks and 0 kills to win, then those generator speeds would have to be as slow as molasses to account for all four Survivors being alive the entire game. To prevent a Killer from scoring a kill and disturbing that balance, what would you do? They can't stand too long in a certain place or you'll have to punish them, they can't tunnel someone or you'll have to punish them, they won't be able to slug or you'll have to punish them.
To balance the game to your satisfaction would be to bore Survivors rigid and remove any autonomy the Killer has outside of chase. What would Survivor do? Generators now take too long and chases would only make them take even longer. They're going to avoid chases at all costs and spend even longer holding M1. At that point, Survivors won't want to play the game and Killers may as well be replaced by bots because their level of interaction will have become infinitely more linear and just as engaging as holding M1 on a generator for several minutes at a time.
What's ultimately better: a flawed game where there is choice and variety or a game so balanced that neither choice nor variety can exist for fear of disturbing that balance?
-
@Yusoka said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528760#Comment_3528760
DCing is no longer harmful to the team and “everyone’s overall enjoyment” when there’s a bot who does gens, opens exits, takes chase, unhooks, gives killer BP for chases,unhooking, etc. that’s the point. I’ve played with bots that loop as decently as most decent players, do gens, unhook, etc. not all human players are god tier loopers or even helpful. Bots weren’t made to be guaranteed cracked
You're clearly looking for someone to agree with you and validate your selfishness. That's not me.
-
@Yusoka said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528744#Comment_3528744
Not really, you’re not answering WHY players are punished, just stating that they ARE punished despite bots existing (clearly I know this). Players CAN leave and do, but WHY are they punished when it no longer gives a disadvantage to survivors or takes away potential BP from killers? Evidently you don’t have an answer for WHY. Bots do replace human players, that’s the point of them.
I have answered your question twice. If you choose not to accept it as an answer, that's on you. Bots are fundamentally very stupid - they can't loop as well as a person, they get stuck on scenery, they stand in corners and have existential crises. A human player leaving and being replaced by a very dumb AI is a disadvantage. Bots are simply there to make sure the game isn't a complete snowball in the Killer's favour.
Disconnecting is objectively harmful to the team and everyone's overall enjoyment of the game. That is why they're punished.
-
@Yusoka said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528735#Comment_3528735
100% that isn’t an answer to my question. If the bots* are “compensating” whatever would be “lost” by someone DCing, then why are people punished for DCing when there is no loss to everyone else anymore?
It is an answer, just not the one you wanted. A bot will never make up for the loss of a human player, but will go some small way to making sure the game isn't completely ruined for everyone else. They weren't added so people could leave, they were added because people do leave.
-
The bots are there to compensate for someone leaving the game, not to facilitate it.
-
@DragonMasterDarren said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528640#Comment_3528640
Well, there is a very slight change in plans unfortauntely
For whatever reason, the RPD Offering causes the match to crash and boot everyone to the end-game lobby screen, meaning that I can't reliably grind for Outbreak Breakout
Not going to stop me from getting Power Moves, but still
I think it's the game's way of saving you from yourself.
-
You have 101 offerings to get the achievement. I don't like those odds.
Godspeed, you masochist. Godspeed.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3527998#Comment_3527998
Sure it does, i'm saying you balance the game around that. Balance gen times around that, balance structures around that, loops, pallets. The like. Think about how the killer needs to go for hooks instead of tunneling someone out in 2 minutes what that does to the game. You now need to consider that instead of the game being about eliminating 1 survivor before you are down to the last 2 gens where now you basically just win, it is now about having to chase different survivors. Meanwhile you need to balance the game and gen times with the fact that you can't quickly eliminate someone anymore.
This game is basically balanced around being a 3.5 players vs 1 player not 4v1 or 3v1. Thus, survivors are too strong when there are 4, and too weak when there are 3. Better to balance the game in a way where survivors can't be eliminated from a match in 2 minutes with no chance to do anything and the killer hoping that the team is too altruistic instead of just doing gens.
I'm suggesting a world where you balance the game such that, a survivor probably isn't being eliminated until the very end of the game, but that doing so results in the killer "winning" and we balance around hooks and chases.
Do you prefer a world where tunneling and camping are the optimal strategy the vast majority of the time? Or would you prefer a game where individual skills, mindgames, and diverse play are the optimal strategy?
"Do you prefer a world where tunneling and camping are the optimal strategy the vast majority of the time? Or would you prefer a game where individual skills, mindgames, and diverse play are the optimal strategy?"
Out of that choice, I would prefer the world where tunnelling and camping are the optimal strategies because the second world can't exist as you've tried to sell it to me. A more balanced, fun and fair world can exist, I don't doubt that, but I don't see yours as being it.
-
That's great news! The cats will need something to eat when they're added back to the game.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3527966#Comment_3527966
You missed a key word in my sentence there that i'm not sure if you just missed, or completely ignored deliberately. I said BALANCE the game around hooks instead of kills. This would obviously include other changes to killers as a whole that would preferably bring up the lower tier killers and reworking (not nerfing) nurse, nerfing blight's addons, etc.
Also, i'm a nurse main, and think this game at the highest level heavily favors survivors. So if you think for a second i want the game to be survivor-sided, you are sorely mistaken.
I saw the word, I didn't ignore it. It's just hard to address something when there's nothing to address. "Just do something to make it better" isn't something I can really respond to. Trying to balance the game around hooks and not kills, to the point where 0 kills are expected to be the average, isn't something that lends itself to non-constrictive gameplay conditions.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3527746#Comment_3527746
That's what i'm saying though, that shouldn't be the case. If they balanced the game around hooks instead of kills, and considered an 8 hook 0 kill game a win for a killer, everyone would have a lot more fun, and tunneling and camping would be a thing of the past.
So, basically, tune the game massively in favour of Survivors, give Killers nothing and redefine what winning means so they see getting trounced as a win and will be happy about it.
-
@Melinko said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526940#Comment_3526940
This isn't philosophy or world history.
This is a business.
More players will be upset if they don't fix the issue than the tiny handful of killer mains that will be upset they have to use hooks.
Think the devs don't know that, look at what happened to gen regression and look at the fact that the Devs have said they plan to install an anti-camp mechanic. An anti-tunnel and anti-slug will certainly be on the way as well at the current rate.
The world evolves, so do games. Players have to change their playstyle all the time. Any good long running game does this by keeping the largest portion of it's client base happy. Sure a few killer mains will be upset and leave, but there will always be the players who play both sides and don't care about these changes and new players who come in and only know these changes.
If you didn't want a simple phrase that was applied contextually to be explained to you, you shouldn't have ignored most of what I was saying in order to hyper-focus on it and derail the conversation. You didn't care about the term I used, in fact you full well understood it - you just wanted to condescend and distract from your own non-argument. Then, when it no longer served as a distraction, you simply hand-waved it as unimportant to the discussion.
Deeming one portion of the player-base worthless of consideration because it's smaller is exactly what I said it was - utilitarian sociopathy. Their needs are lesser, the negative impact of any changes on them are insignificant to you because you're out here serving the greater good and they're in your way, etc. Changes bad enough to drive players away from Killer -- potentially en masse -- because of how un-fun and restrictive they are will never make for good retention of newer players. The vast majority of people that play Killer already understand the effectiveness of hooks and the effectiveness of choosing when to hook. What they're not going to want is to be told they have to hook or be punished. That's the game making their choices for them.
Yes, there'll be new players to replace the old ones, but there's no guarantee there'll be an endless stream of newer players to replace the replacements when they find the whole experience lacking autonomy and interaction. Even if those newer players know no different, know nothing of previous metas and mechanics, they're still experiencing tiresome and arbitrarily punishing gameplay (e.g. proposed anti-tunnelling mechanics) that will drive them from the game sooner rather than later - or at least from playing Killer, which has the same effect. Survivors can't chase themselves.
Players have to change their playstyle all the time? Like how Survivors had the same meta for the best part of, what, five years? Survivor core mechanics (not to be confused with playstyle) have pretty much always been the same, whereas what Survivors are advocating is lobotomising Killer mechanics at the base level and changing not how they choose to play but how the game functions around them and forces them to play.
I will now use the words: "avocado time-machine" so you may hyper-focus on them. You're welcome.
-
Pretty sure discounts only happen on the anniversary, but not for the most recent Killers at the time.
-
@Melinko said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526718#Comment_3526718
It has everything to do with ego. If it wasn't ego driven a player wouldn't care if they got 3 kills, plus 2 hooks and the last survivor who managed to get the hatch and get lucky. It is purely an ego issue of "i must getz the 4 k." I play every bit as much on the killer side as I do on the survivor side. I don't have to get the 4k to feel like I've succeeded. One of my favorite things is the scratched mirror Myers. I've gotten every survivor two hooked and then just stopped and let them all leave. Doesn't impact my day, the fun was in the hunt and the jumpscares. When the game stopped being about having fun and the killers turned it into I must have 4 k or I failed, that's an issue.
As to your last point. You completely butchered the use of words there. Utilitarians want people to be happy. Sociopaths don't care whether other people are happy.
Utilitarianism will focus on the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but that doesn't mean they ignore the sacrifice of the few. As for if the game would survive making the 4 happy at the cost of the 1, well they are doing just fine making the 1 happy at the cost of the four. This forum proves that as everyday you see people upset about slugging, camping and tunneling. It's taken 7 years and they are just now starting to work on the anti-camp. It won't hurt the game one bit if they force the killers into hooking survivors, you know the actual point of the game as you said, the way to sacrifice them to the entity (which is the point of the game, not killing them but sacrifcing them to the enity.) Letting them bleed out is actual not the point of the game, hence why you need to use a special item to actual "kill" a survivor yourself.
1) You're not making an argument, you're repeating what you previously said. You're not psychic - you don't know what motivates people, what they're thinking. Yet you speak so matter-of-factly. You're taking how you play and deciding anyone that plays differently must be wrong. You're happy to settle for less than is asked of you, so anyone that doesn't must have an ego problem. They don't.
2) As for my last point, I did not butcher anything. You're pushing for the happiness of the many at the expense of the few because you only have concern for the many. Because you are one of the many. It was an intentional phrase to illustrate a point you clearly missed - you're so hellbent on making the many happy, you've actually forgotten the few are also real people, or simply just didn't care in the first place - you don't care about one half of the player-base, and that's the problem. Everyone that's ever advocated Killer players be punished for playing the game has done that - you're no different. Utilitarian ideals don't exclude harming people, they simply advocate for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian sociopathy is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people -- always the side the person making the argument happens to be on -- while being acutely aware that you're achieving that good by directly harming others (see: your what's good for business argument - Survivor players create more income so the needs of Killer players are a distant secondary concern). That may even be the intention in some instances.
If you paid attention, in the slightest, Killer players aren't exactly having fun either - maybe even less. If you'd been more keen to sit and think about what the words meant in the context they were used rather than try to gotcha me with the googled definitions of both words (utilitarian certainly has more definitions and nuance), I wouldn't have needed to explain anything. Also, no, I didn't say hooking was the actual point of the game - I said killing the Survivors was the objective, which it is. We're not talking lore reasons, we're talking mechanics and win conditions. Hooking, mori, bleeding out, time over; they all achieve that. I didn't advocate making any of those choices on anyone else's behalf.
3) And yes, forcing Killers to hook Survivors will hurt the game. Taking autonomy away from players will do exactly that: where they can stand and how long, who they can chase and when, when they have to hook. Yes-no, stop-go, red-light-green-light. If you want to play against someone locked into a binary series of choices, go start a petition for Killer bots. No human actually wants to play that game.
-
@Melinko said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526379#Comment_3526379
I would say almost 99% of the killers that are slugging cause they need that 4 k for their ego are just camping around the survivor they downed. They look around behind nearby things for scratch marks or the approaching survivor but they don't stray far, so basically your solution is just give the killer what they are wanting.
There is no reason to leave a survivor laying on the ground. (Edit for one reason, they crawl with boil over to a far corner to avoid the hook, that's on them but if they are near a hook there is no reason to leave them). "But I want a 4 k." Okay, well earn it, hunt the last survivor down. That doesn't mean leaving someone else stuck on the floor for 4 minutes because you don't trust your ability to down the last survivor before they find the hatch.
They need to give unbreakable in this situation or they need to allow the hatch to open after say 1:30 of the survivor bleeding out.
I don't like the idea of a "give-up" option for survivors, as this just encourages slugging. Slugging should result in a higher odds of the killer losing. This is still a game, and you have to take into account that 5 people in that lobby are customers. So you want to make it miserable for 4 (slugged) to make happy 1 (the killer who has to slug to get 4 k). Businesses don't survive upsetting a majority of their client base.
1) Saying "almost" 99% isn't any less ludicrous than saying 99% or 100%, so you may as well have just committed to it. It has little to nothing to do with ego and more to do with the fact that killing Survivors is literally the Killer's entire objective - they're completing their objective as was given. It's "Kill the Survivors," not "Kill some of them, maybe, idk bro, you should probably just stop 75% of the way there." People seriously need to get off their damn high-horses and stop trying to spin one half of the player-base as defective - be that egomaniacs, socially maladjusted or, as I have seen people say before, actually evil. You're not painting them in a bad light, you're painting yourself in one.
2) Slugging for the 4K makes it easier to achieve the objective. Seems like a good reason to me. And you know full well the hatch can spawn right next to the last Survivor. It has nothing to do with anyone's ability to find them, or crippling self-doubt in said ability - it's RNG.
3) Businesses tend not to thrive too well if they massively piss off either side in their asymmetric multiplayer game. Both sides are needed to function. Resorting to utilitarian sociopathy - making the few incredibly miserable for the sake of the many - will not make the game more successful.
-
The positives of anonymous mode far outweigh the negatives.
-
"Spread pressure" at this point is such a meaningless term. People throw it around as if it's some sage piece of advice that wins arguments, but ultimately they're saying nothing helpful. It may as well be code for, "Have you tried losing less?"
-
@Clockwork_Enigma said:
Let me give you guys a reality check since you don't seem to understand.
Lightborn in its current state is a useless perk. The moment any team or individual realizes they aren't blinding you, the benefits of the perk become useless and you have what is effectively an empty perk slot.
You would get maybe one, two uses of Lightborn in its current state, at best. Then it's useless.
Even then, it's a crutch perk that people without skill use to mitigate something that is meant to outplay them. So removing the ability to nullify an entire item (and instead just making it reduce its power) is a must. Just because you guys are afraid of a niche scenario happening once in a blue moon in games (e.g. Flashlight squads) shouldn't cloud your judgement over the fact this is a completely unhealthy perk in the game at the moment.
Now.
As for the version of the perk I created, this would be more commonly used simply due to the fact players will almost never know you're running Lightborn. Even if they realize it, the change to remove its nullification of blinding means that Survivors will still be inclined to hit you with any source of light more often.
The result?
- You get to use the perk more.
- You get rid of the blindness 50% faster.
- You get 50% stun resistance to any source of light-related stun (Blast Mine or Rescuing).
So you think it's a nerf, but in fact it's a buff to its overall utility and, in an era of the game that doesn't need perks like the current version of Lightborn, is 100% healthier for the game.
My reality feels decidedly unchecked. Maybe you checked it with a perk as effective as your Lightborn rework. I mean, seriously; you buffed the perk that stops you being blinded by making it so you can now be blinded. Up next: the fireproof suit that's actually made from kerosene-soaked rags.
You get to use the perk more? The existing version of Lightborn prevents 100% of initial blind attempts and then deters 100% of future attempts. You can't use a perk more than that. Lightborn was never meant to be some weird passive slowdown where Survivors are still encouraged to blind you every other second. It's just there to stop Flashlight bully squads, and it does its job admirably.
I await the topic where you fix MFT and make it 100% healthier for the game by making the Survivor slower.
-
@Iamtheonlysalad said:
A lot people that are taking sides with the greedy gaming leaders. You guys do realize that people have multiple accounts right? Why would I want to buy the same thing twice..... They already don't have cross progression from console to PC so we had to buy the DLCs twice. They literally just want more money and taking away items/cosmetics from people that put money into their game. Maybe they should stop being selfish and be kind to the players that actually play their game.
No-one is siding with greedy "gaming leaders," they're just not siding with you. There's a subtle difference.
-
It's a once per game effect. It helps start chases but does nothing to win them. It's fine.
-
I haven't read the TOS, but I'm going to assume it's pretty much like every other TOS ever. "We reserve the right to withdraw access to content without notice, blah blah, not required to offer compensation, yadda yadda."
-
And so continues the DBD community's attempts to fix that which isn't broken.
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3521581#Comment_3521581
not talking about this game at all
Fair enough.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3521581#Comment_3521581
They could mean VHS.
They could, I suppose, but I thought that was already dead. I know the servers for F13 are closing soon.
-
@VoidOfMe said:
Well, we'll have to see how long that game will still be fun in the next couple of weeks. Do you guys remember that other 'fun game' where being a killer and a survivor was more fun than in DBD and it made DBD feel stale? I've heard that game will be closing its doors soon.
Insert a random reason of why that game failed and the new one won't here:
If you're talking about F13, I wouldn't quite call a 'massive lawsuit that prevented the game being worked on for a significant period of time' a random reason.
-
Well, I'm glad you were there. If it had been four of you behaving like that, he'd have probably uninstalled immediately. At least he got the chance to see there's some small hope left in humanity.
-
There's an anti-camping mechanic in the works that does, to some degree, what you'd like.
-
@Skillfulstone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3521070#Comment_3521070
While I do agree, there's not much to be done to truly discourage tunnelling as far as base mechanics go.
The only thing I can think of would be to greatly reduce bp gain if hooking the same Survivor twice within a short window of time after unhook, and completely remove bp gain if a Survivor is hooked 3 times in a row in this fashion.
I also think that bp gain should exponentially increase when hooking different Survivors to encourage spreading hooks (kinda-like BBQ did to some extent before).
All this would be doing is rewarding people for playing sub-optimally and punishing them if they don't. Encouraging people to make the game more stressful and unenjoyable for themselves isn't the way forward. Tunnelling is mechanically ingrained into the game - you can't remove it (and you definitely shouldn't ever band-aid it) without reworking the core mechanics of the game.
-
Would it be possible? Yes. Would it murder matchmaking? Yes.
-
