Rydog
Rydog
About
- Username
- Rydog
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,015
- Last Active
Comments
-
This is a good upgrade, but Wraith's real problem is poor map pressure. He ought to move faster -- like, Spirit while in her phasing power faster -- while cloaked. The delay in reappearing could maybe be slightly increased to compensate.
-
If everyone's MMR number is not clearly displayed (even if it is just on the post-match screen), this will be worthless, because it will not address the perception problem that rank is what influences the matchmaking algorithm.
99.99% of players do not read these forums, and it should be assumed that they also don't read patch notes or in-game news. They won't even know something is different unless you communicate to them clearly, in-game, that there is another number that matters. Otherwise, they will just keep going "What the hell, I'm rank 17 and I keep getting matched with rank 3 people, this game is broken."
Also, I kiiiiiiiiiiiinda think that it is just blanket confusing to have two different numbers. Just have one number that governs all this stuff, or at least make them correlate. Hearthstone, for example, hides its MMR but still still matchmakes within the same season rank band.
-
I dunno where this quote comes from, but I would assume that the developers are -- as always seems to be the case -- going entirely off of metrics when evaluating perk balance. In other words: X% of players use Hex: Undying and it results in an outlying Y% of victories, therefore we see a balance problem with it. But, something like like Z% of players use Decisive Strike and it results in a normal-range A% of victories, therefore there is not a balance problem.
I don't necessarily agree with every single moan-and-groan on this forum about how X perk is unbalanced or ruining the game or whatever, but anecdotally, it seems to me that Behaviour is really bad at gauging the human emotional element of why this-or-that is frustrating, regardless of what their metrics tell them.
-
What? Your current outfit and perk loadout stick to you. Is the game putting you back to your default clothes or something? Because that should not happen.
Premade outfit/loadout slots would be cool, I agree. But your current equipped stuff should not just be vanishing after every match or whatever.
-
Everything about this game's UI and UX needs to change, it has some of the worst UI/UX I've ever seen in any game of this scope. You guys who are complaining about the new in-match HUD are just really used to what we have now, even though it's suboptimal and kinda bad at conveying information, especially for new players. This is really the important distinction: The UI needs to serve new players better. All you guys here, you're already in the system, and you understand how all of this works. But I have never, never introduced anyone to this game who wasn't confused by something about the presentation. The game's UI should prevent this, but it doesn't. It needs to work better for new players (and if it works for new players, it is -- by nature -- gonna keep working for you, too).
Now, I would have maybe made some different decisions about element placement; I think it is better to have most stuff concentrated in the lower-third so as to minimize visual scanning. That said, there aren't enough complex HUD elements here to make this a huge issue. The issue is how it conveys key information, and this HUD does it better.
Consider all the things that the new HUD does:
- The "Generators Remaining" box. I have heard the question "Does this means we've finished X amount of generators, or is that how many are left?" There is no question with this -- and it is front and center. This communicates the game state to the player with no ambiguity.
- Character portraits. I don't care who you are or how long you have played this game, the "anonymity" of each character (unless you take extra steps or have a really great memory) is aggravating. These portraits make it clear who is who.
- Hook counter. Again, a good piece of information to just have available. You no longer have to wonder "Wait, am I on death hook? Is that guy on death hook?" This will make it more clear who should be distracting the killer, who needs to "take their turn" on the hook, and just overall what the game state looks like. It takes the arbitrary obscurity out of the proceedings.
- UI scaling is just a good, basic QoL option that is long overdue.
To those of you who will inevitably go "But this is just a problem for noobs, who cares?" Those new players are way more important than me or you are. I guarantee you that Behaviour has data that says "[Some high number] percent of new players play one match, and if they lose, then they never come back." I can tell you, from experience, that this sort of churn is almost always down to initial presentation and UX. If the player finds the game oppressive and confusing, and they don't understand why things happened the way they happened, there's a huge risk that they are gonna bounce. A HUD refresh is one step toward helping to redress that.
Hopefully they move to the in-game menus and stuff next.
-
Any option or tactic that completely monopolizes a plurality of matches is probably too strong. This currently means something along the lines of:
- Hex: Undying
- Barbecue & Chili
- Decisive Strike
- Borrowed Time
-
I don't understand what the issue with Haunted Ground is, because I'm not following how people are using Undying with it in the first place.
Do you currently get double use out of Haunted Ground with Undying, or something? Like, does the cleansed HG now jump to another totem after the exposed effect goes off? Because if so, wow does that seem unintended.
-
@Antrapace said:
This was said towards the very end of the newly released dev files by Guillaume, a game developer...
Clearly you do not get the rather obvious joke.
Occam's razor, man. There's no hidden malice here.
-
Behaviour is so stingy with BP. You can get 250k in 2-3 killer matches.
It should go something like:
- 16 = 100,000
- 12 = 250,000
- 8 = 500,000
- 4 = 1,000,000
- 3 = 2,000,000
- 2 = 3,000,000
- 1 = 4,000,000
If I'm rank 1, give me enough BP to finish off a single character. Just give people BP. Open the BP floodgates. Stop treating them like some precious economy. Throw some Iridescent shards in there too!
-
@Xayrlen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1857908#Comment_1857908
Yes. Pick a different job for example.
Being good at games and being able to write about games are two very, very different skill sets, and in my experience there is not always a ton of overlap. I have known plenty of aspiring writers who are really good at a given game or genre of game, and even really articulate when speaking about them -- but could not write a sentence to save their life. Writing is a skill, it does not come easy to everyone, and there are a lot of people who try to get into the business of writing about games because they love the games but are not good writers. The bar has unfortunately always been very low in this regard (@Rhoska -- yes, even back before the rise of the Internet, I assure you).
As an editor, 10 times out of 10, I will go with the person who is the better writer, rather than the stronger player, because all of your game knowledge is worthless if you can't convey it well. Not to mention, it's a waste of time for an editor to spend their day trying to salvage an unreadable piece of copy.
Also, you're speaking as though there is no value in an analysis that says "Hey, this is so hard I couldn't even beat the tutorial!" That's a good piece of information to have! A game like Cuphead isn't for everyone, and this kind of experience gives the reader something to think about, in terms of whether or not this game is their cup of tea.
-
@Squirrel_Thicc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1859830#Comment_1859830
Of course I'm not coming at this from that perspective, I'm not a professional writer. My point is, from an outsider perspective, or from the perspective of any non long time player, this game seems to be really good. But if you've been playing this game for a long time you know it has issues that make it not recommendable.
That's why I say only people who have a true understanding of the game and its flaws should be taken seriously when it's reviewed.
But the thing is, the kind of reviewer you're describing -- a super knee-deep-in-the-mud player -- is just not the kind of person who is reviewing this game, let alone any game, for a magazine or a website. That's not the way any review for any game like this works. At best, an editor will have access to writers who are genre specialists. Like, say, I know off-hand who I would solicit to review a new Civilization or StarCraft game, because they know strategy games really well. And while that person knows strategy games really well, chances are they aren't spending all of their time playing one specific game to death. DBD is still kind of alone in this class of games, so there's not a huge frame of reference that can make someone a genre specialist, in the same way.
To go back to my earlier MMO example, it was always super-difficult to find people to review MMO expansions, since by their very nature, you had to find someone who had been playing that particular game all along. For something massive like World of Warcraft, that was pretty easy cuz everyone was playing it -- but at every magazine and website I worked for, we almost always neglected to review MMO expansions because we couldn't find writers who could dive into whatever the particular game was.
In a perfect world, what you're saying would be the ideal scenario. But that is just not how it works out, for all the myriad real-world reasons I have conveyed here. The economics are part of how any type of coverage of this nature works.
-
Your eyes have to "search" to a greater degree with this new HUD, but I also don't think this game is complex enough that this is going to add much if any added inconvenience. You are not gonna need to constantly check gen status or keep your eyes glued to the survivor status readout -- and when you do look at that stuff, it's a very small amount of information to process and then return your eyes to the center.
Final Fantasy XIV is my gold standard to compare things like this to, in terms of complex UI that you need to be able to intuit constantly, in chaotic situations. I have my UI in that game heavily customized, and everything is in the bottom third of the screen in a way that is specifically intended to cut down on my visual "searching" during combat.
Given the option, do I think it would be ideal to restrict all of these DBD HUD elements to the bottom corners of the screen? Well, yes. But I don't think that the amount of information that you need to keep track of is gonna be enough to overwhelm in this new layout.
-
@Squirrel_Thicc said:
The only people who have the right to review a certain game are people who have played that certain game for a long period of time. Not just someone who played for 45 minutes and never touched the game again.
You are not really understanding the economics of how a game review works.
If this guy spent, to use my previous example, a full 40-hour work week playing this game in order to file this 750-word review, that's a huge chunk of time to dedicate to one single paid assignment, but 40 hours is a drop in the bucket when it comes to really understanding a game like this. But from the standpoint of someone who is doing this for pay -- and I'm going to be really amazingly generous and assume he got something like $250 for this assignment -- that's a LOT of time and energy spent before moving on to whatever the next thing is.
When I was the reviews editor for Computer Gaming World, we paid freelancers $0.50 per word (and this was in the good times). This was a while back so it's a struggle for me to remember the exact details (this was mid-2000s) -- but I want to say our average review length was about 1,100 words for 2 pages ($550), 600 words for 1 page ($300), and 250 words for a half-page ($125). It was a challenge to, say, find someone to review an MMO, because it just wasn't worth the time they would have to dedicate to it, as they needed to have time to dedicate to other assignments so they could continue to eke out a living and pay their bills.
The bottom has definitely fallen out on pay rates and such since the good old magazine days too, so these freelancers are probably being paid even less today. And I know from talking to friends at other outlets, and who have more recent press experience than I do, that reviews have some of the worst ROI of any content on a website, because they take forever and don't get the eyeballs that gameplay videos or a feed of constant news stories do. So from everyone's perspective (the writer and the editorial staff), dedicating the time and effort to a really deep and comprehensive video game review is really hard to justify.
TL;DR You're looking at this from the tunnel-vision perspective of a fan, not as someone who writes for a living. The economics are pretty harsh, especially, specifically for reviews, in terms of time spent versus what it earns you.
-
My thoughts:
- Clown change comes across, at least on paper, as some convoluted cruft, and I find myself wondering why it wasn't just a cleaner redesign. That said, hey, maybe I'm wrong -- I'm willing to give it a try.
- The HUD update looks like a good improvement. I've always wondered why there was no hook counter or portraits before. We can argue over placement, but that seems like a pretty minor point to me. And, UI scaling is a good basic QoL improvement. This game needs a lot of serious UI/UX work, and this HUD redesign is a good first step.
- Locomotion update looks fine. I'm sure there will be some "WAAAH IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!!! I HAVE TO ACCLIMATE TO THIS AND IT'S ANNOYING!!!!" bellyaching, but we will all get used to it quickly, and then it will be fine.
- I'm still very apprehensive about MMR for all the reasons that @ScottJund has laid out in the past. If it's going to stick around, it needs to WORK, i.e. almost never result in terminally lopsided matches. Also, we need to be able to see everyone's MMR ratings, otherwise no one will know they exist and people will keep assuming that rank determines matchmaking. Unless everyone's MMR is visible -- on the post-match screen at the very least -- the perception problem will not go away.
- Rank rewards are too stingy. Behaviour, you guys are too stingy with BP across the board. You're telling me rank 1 is gonna get me approximately the same BP reward that a couple of killer matches will? Really? It ought to be something like 100k at 16, 500k at 12, 1m at 8, 2m at 4, 3m at 3, 4m at 2, and 5m at 1. Give me enough BP to pretty much completely finish a character if I hit high red ranks, and really reward the fact that getting from rank 4 to rank 1 is way harder than getting from rank 20 to rank 4.
- Graphics update looks good, as always.
- Wraith invisibility changes sound great. I still think he needs a way to pressure gens better, but this is a good improvement.
- That wasn't the Trapper update I was expecting when I saw that. Who cares about trap escapes? Survivors can avoid traps by paying attention; you didn't need to give them another break against Trapper, because he struggles as it is. Trapper needs less wind-up to get going. Start off all traps armed, and don't force him to pick his power up off the floor.
- I agree that the Deep Wound timer is probably a little too generous. I never feel threatened by Legion's power.
- Diversion change is good, I guess. Why isn't this just on a 60-second cooldown or something?
- Fixated change makes sense. Makes me tempted to try to work this perk into my build.
- Hex: Undying change is pretty much the exact thing I've been imagining myself -- it just transfers once, good compromise. This change suddenly makes Devour Hope a lot scarier, too.
- Other perk changes: Cool.
-
My knee-jerk reaction is that this Clown change is some awkward cruft, and it should have been a more straightforward redesign rather than what currently appears to me as some weird random layers of complication. But, I'm certainly willing to give it a try, maybe I'm wrong.
-
@JawsIsTheNextKiller said:
I thought it was an excellent review. The review only really needs to go as far as to sway you into buying it or not buying it. I don't expect the reviewer to put several hundred hours in first.
Many on the forums would give it a low rating and complain about the balance, matchmaking and the bugs, but how many hours do they have? If you have hundreds of hours on a game, you probably like it enough to get value from your purchase. So maybe it isn't so bad after all?
Yeah, agreed. The DBD faithful -- the people who inhabit these forums and have dedicated hundreds of hours to the game already -- are not the audience for a review like this. I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of people here have played this game to the degree that they are just hollowed-out, Malcolm Tucker-esque husks that exist as avatars to play and talk about this game. 😀
-
@Yamaoka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1857989#Comment_1857989
Thank you for giving me a better idea about all that. Appreciate it really.
No problem. And I was not trying to call you out or anything like that -- just giving some context on how this looks from the reviewer's side.
There have been plenty of times in my career when I have, say, dedicated 40 hours (what a normal person would consider to be a full work week) to a game, in order to produce a 1,000 word review. A very experienced DBD player would look at that and go "You can't even begin to understand this game or even get anything unlocked with that little time put into it!" But for someone who is reviewing it on assignment, that's their entire week, which is a significant amount of time. And I don't recognize that reviewer's name from the PC Gamer masthead, which means it's probably a freelancer who did this, got paid some tragically small amount for the effort, and had to move on to some other assignment.
Games continue to get more complicated -- game-as-service stuff (like DBD) even more so. It unfortunately doesn't make things any easier for reviewers who have finite time to dedicate to any one thing.
-
Mash-to-struggle.
They should just change it so that there is no input while on the second hook phase (that is, make it like hook phase #1, except you can't attempt to escape).
-
Also, re: that Cuphead story. Video game reviewers aren't necessarily good at games. I remember when Dark Souls came out, there was a whole "Dark Souls reviewer support group" sort of mailing list between editors and writers who were covering the game on deadline. Keza MacDonald (who reviewed the game for IGN) co-wrote a very good book about this called "You Died: The Dark Souls Companion."
-
@Yamaoka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1857922#Comment_1857922
It is... People that write articles usually aren't gamers but plain journalists so if they have to post something about a specific game they'll just watch a few clips and maybe try it a little before doing their work so they usually have no idea what they're talking about but people that read them articles usually have no clue either so no one notices.
A german DBD article mentioned how unfair original Ormond was claiming it was too easy to find survivors due to the bright environment making it a killer-sided map.
Former editor for multiple video game magazines and websites here.
What you're saying in this post, it just simply isn't true at all. The people who write for enthusiast outlets -- like PC Gamer, IGN, GameSpot, and what-have-you -- are largely gamers first, and writer/editor/whatever their job title is second. They came to it because they love the games, and have the perspective of a passionate enthusiast (believe me when I say they didn't get into it because the job paid well). Note that this might not be 100% the case with a non-enthusiast outlet (think Newsweek or Wired or something), but I assure you that those kinds of places definitely dip into the same freelancer pool, too.
The thing about reviewing games on a deadline is that it can sometimes be very hard to get a complete, really accurate picture of absolutely everything that a game has to offer, especially when it has some sort of complex/emergent multiplayer component or an extremely broad scope. I can't speak for the PC Gamer reviewer and have no idea what the terms of the assignment looked like, but this review barely cracks 700 words, and that is definitely not enough space to cover everything with a game like this. This is someone who probably has what the 2,000+ hour players here would consider a very surface-level knowledge of the game.
I can see how a relatively inexperienced player would, say, find Ormond to be a killer-sided map because it is bright. That is because the game communicates some very wrongheaded information to players, and a reviewer doesn't always have the space to sort all of that out. Game developers sometimes do a very poor job of onboarding their audience and providing reviewers with strong support, and this leads to a lot of avoidable misconceptions (and DBD has some of the worst onboarding and UX I have personally ever experienced in a video game of this scope). I'm not laying any of this at the feet of this particular reviewer or outlet, I'm just explaining how the review process for a game like this can lead to a review that doesn't capture the whole picture.
-
Maybe it could be a thing where they die on the hook immediately, and then respawn, but then all survivors instantly die for real when you get 12 total hook states.
Hmmmm. That would really incentivize the killer aggressively pursuing the weakest link, though.
-
@Weeb_H_Toast said:
Be honest, you don't want to play a challenging asymmetrical horror game the requires teamwork, coordination, and skill to win.
You want a cheap power fantasy, where you get to beat the bad guy.
You want to be the hero, without the effort.
You want to win, without a chance to lose.
You want to bully the faceless monster because you don't have the strength of character to fight the real ones.
You are so scared of failure, that should something challenge to take away the tools you use to cheaply steal victory, you scream about it.
You are not the main character, you are not the only person playing, you are not entitled to win, no one else is either.
Dead By Daylight should be made much harder, no more aim dressing, no more second chance perks, you want to survive? Work together or die alone. Do you want to kill them all? Train your aim, learn set-ups, and speak up if the power role doesn't feel powerful.
The Killer Power role is a joke, with exceptions. If facing a killer by yourself is not daunting. something is wrong. In a proper asymmetrical game, the power role should be powerful, you should be wary of being near, knowing that getting seen a bad, and getting caught dangerous. It isn't, not to myself or any other truly experienced survivors.
I mean, I run Mettle of Mither, and can still escape without a Survive With Friend squad. That should tell you something is up.
For many players, I think this IS true -- they just want to do some low-effort bullying and tell someone who struggled to gain some ground to "git gud," and then when they meet someone who is a very good killer player, they get mad and shout about cheap easy-mode perks or items or whatever else.
Not everyone is like this, but these players are definitely not rare. Just remember what my wife says, when I wonder aloud why people act this way. She tells me "It's because they have nothing else in life except this video game."
-
"Survivor culture."
Wat
-
You kill the survivor, then they spawn again with 0 hook states!
-
My go-to survivor build is Bond, Spine Chill, Lithe, and Kindred. I'll sometimes swap out Kindred for Borrowed Time or Iron Will or something if I'm in the mood, or for some other perk if I need it for a tome challenge or whatever. But, this build has served me well all the way up to red ranks. It supplies me with a lot of information, and Lithe is the most reliable exhaustion perk in the game.
Most of my built-out killers use some mix of BBQ, Whispers, Pop, Discordance, Tinkerer, Hex: Ruin, and Hex: Undying.
-
Some sort of cooldown for placing snares is the most likely option for a nerf, to me.
Or maybe some sort of actively inflicted dream state again (like, Freddy has to hit you to put you to sleep, instead of it just happening passively on a timer).
I think they need to be very careful, or the pendulum would swing back way too far the other way for Freddy again. For example, doing both of the things I've described here would probably be too excessive.
-
People who say stuff like this don't want you to get good. They want you to continue to have poor matches so they can trash-talk you. These are the same people who, when faced with an actual good killer, yell at the killer player for using "crutch perks" or doing whatever thing they think is cheap or unfair.
They're sore winners, and sore losers. Report them post-game for toxic chat.
-
There's no such thing as a crutch perk. There are powerful perks, and there are weak perks. If you are committed to giving yourself every chance to win every time, you are using the powerful perks.
That's not to imply that there are no balancing issues around some perks -- there most certainly are -- but there will always be powerful ones, and people will always use those in order to help ensure a win. This is how any competitive game with a slew of different and variously powered options works.
-
Other than the obvious learning curve with Nurse... I feel like Blight's camera POV maybe throws my range perception off a bit sometimes.
-
A perk to stop people from using a benign in-game emote seems like overkill. Just chase them out of the gate, and the game will be over. And I mean, if you really want to go down this wormhole, you've already got Blood Warden and NOED available to you.
This whole thing is just kind of perplexing to me, and I really cannot relate. This is a thread where people are getting steamed about members of the opposing team mashing the crouch button a bunch, the most low-effort "trolling" possible. If it wasn't that, it would be some other emote or movement. I cannot understand how this triggers people so hard, because it is literally just a person spamming a button.
Why does this anger people so much? Why is it such a hot-button issue that people believe it is a problem that needs a solution? Stop letting these people get to you when they crouch-spam, because it shouldn't impact your play, and it is not some sort of referendum on your skill in this game. I'm saying this to you in a way that kind of goes beyond Dead by Daylight and is actual life advice: Don't let these kinds of small, stupid, meaningless things get to you. They are not worth worrying about, and you shouldn't let them have such an impact on your life or your mental state.
-
@Duende2211 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1849116#Comment_1849116
I undestand how that is a bad idea, but there must be another way to stop survivors premade since that is the most unbalance issue in the game. Calling a "virus" to mute a mics or close third apps (when the game is running and u are playing as survivor with friends in same room) is a little too much. Most of virus search to erase, stole, or encript ur data, meanwhile anticheats system already detected hacks (bassicaly third party apps/programs) and the game already has control over sound peripherals. So i dont think is so hard to do something for avoid comms premade of survivors and made the game a more balance.
A program that performs unwanted functions and/or tampers with your system's operation is, by definition, malware. You cannot reasonably expect that a game would have system-level access to your connected devices, to the degree that you are describing.
Also, more broadly: You can't stop friends from talking to each other in a co-op game. You just can't. They will always find a way. This is just what is.
-
People will call every meta "boring" if it lasts long enough. This is not the first or the last time we will see a content creator get frustrated at a powerful combo. It's a competitive game, that is the way it is.
-
I'm confident that you understand why removing the option to play the game with your friends would be a bad idea.
And this:
"You guys need to stop this, make something like close all apps like teamspeak/discord/etc when the game is running and you are playing as survivors. Or mute all the mics."
...yeah, this thing you're describing right here is called a computer virus.
-
If you join a game and then decide you don't want to play, then yeah you should be punished.
If your Internet sucks, then get better Internet or don't play online games of this nature? I dunno what to tell you there.
-
It would be great to have Sidney as a survivor, but Ghostface and the Scream license are two different things unfortunately.
-
Wat
-
@shiffpup2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1839499#Comment_1839499
Looks like a decline in active players to me, with the increases during this year corresponding to events with worth it rewards (ie good logins, 2x bp, etc.) Not that I completely agree with the OP that swf is what's killing the game, but the active player base does not prove him wrong.
The current player count is probably what passes for standard decline, for this game in 2020. Compare it to previous years; DBD is having its best year to date.
-
One that isn't an indoor nightmare corridor maze. No more Midwich, Hawkins, etc. please.
-
@SweetTerror said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1839529#Comment_1839529
Ruin + Undying has very much been a part of many killer builds since the blight was introduced. And you're right, you don't need to run those builds to be successful, but the higher in rank you are, the more of a meme build you need. Now if you have devoted hundreds if not thousands of hours into the game, and know the ins and outs of every map like the back of your hand, then probably not, but for the casual player like myself that can only fit in a few hours a day, it's kinda needed.
Oops, sorry, I was for some reason thinking Undying was a Twins perk. My point still stands though -- there were other powerful options that worked before this existed.
Isn't a "meme build" a silly build that's mostly for goofing off? I definitely wouldn't describe strong meta builds that way.
-
@Slashstreetboy said:
If you play DBD a lot, you see a couple obvious hackers per week. I´m pretty sure there are plenty more who do so in a more subtle way, like slight movementspeed increases or stronger hacks where the Killer can´t see it.
EAC does literally nothing against hackers apparently, so they should improve their protection. Also, they should add an auto replay feature for suspected hacker games instead of relying 100% on witness recordings to do anything.
The fact that their CS team doesn't have the ability to access match replays to handle reports still blows my mind.
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1839564#Comment_1839564
I’m only talking about when he uncloaks cause you know how when you uncloak as wraith you get a speedboost I made it longer while having a higher speed so you can actually lunge at them but it’s only 1.5 seconds then your back to being a M1 killer
1.5 seconds of moving 10.58ms would be quite a lot.
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
If I were to buff the Wraith, 1st off I would make him completely invisible, increase his cloaked movement speed to 150% speed, make it so he can walk through walls and pallets while invisible but he can’t attack, he can still break pallets and gens but can’t attack.
When the Wraith uncloaks himself he moves at 230% speed for 1.5 seconds and the sound of the bell is heard 12 meters from his location. When he turns invisible the bell is silent and the Woosh sound is removed this is how I would buff Wraith
230%, easy there buddy. I think Spirit is, what, 175% while phasing?
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1839555#Comment_1839555
That’s impossible how do you add something like that to a killer that’s so basic he’s too basic
They'll remake him in some unforeseeable way.
-
His big issue is map coverage. He really needs to be able to move faster when cloaked; maybe play with the idea of allowing him to walk through solid objects while invisible, at the cost of taking longer to phase back in.
But they'll probably just give him some stupid cooldown timer like they do for every killer they remake.
-
You definitely don't need to use Ruin + Undying + Tinkerer to stand a chance. You couldn't even do that a month ago, and killers were still winning games just fine. People act like nothing came before whatever the current meta is.
-
Wat
-
I dunno what to tell you. Stop disconnecting?
-
Proving you wrong, as requested: https://steamcharts.com/app/381210
-
@megswifey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1838751#Comment_1838751
Oh gosh, I guess I've just been getting weird teams and killer matches then. I'm just upset that at rank 15 killer I get a team of red ranks and sometimes as a red rank survivor get entire teams of rank 20s (Though rank does not always determine skill, there are some amazing low ranks out there!!) but I cannot believe I have depipped so much from being matched with really low ranks
It's generally been my experience that rank at least vaguely correlates with game skill. The kinds of matchups you're describing definitely happen way too often, though. Cross play was supposed to fix this, so I dunno how it is now seemingly at its all-time worst.
-
@abc_9000 said:
this is been bothering me for a quite a bit now. Why don't we have the devil himself into dbd. I been looking at how the devil for a while and how to defeat him like that. But i don't really see anyone thinking of adding the devil into dbd or call him Lucifier I don't mind who you call him but its like its been eating me up for a little bit.
Yeah, man, I can't think of even one reason why it would be a really bad idea to add a real-world religion's embodiment of evil to this game as a playable character. I'm sure it would go over well and not cause a fuss with anyone.