Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3646336#Comment_3646336
If they rework survivor emblems, i can support that. And they should anyway. Survivor emblems are terrible bad. If you camped and tunnelled out by killer, you will barely get BPs. Or if you looped killer for good and they did not leave you, you will not get BP from other objectives.
They should rework this too and then i am fine with your solution. Rats should not be rewarded with hatch , i am all for it.
BPs are technically different than emblems, though the categories are essentially the same. For example if you never get downed, you get an iri unbroken emblem, never hooked is gold, etc. The idea I floated leaves room for the thresholds to be tinkered with behind the scenes, so if you had two silvers, a gold and an iri, its obviously a passing grade.
But if you got tunnelled and only really got an iri in Evader but bronze in everything else, those types of uneven scenarios could be fine tuned whether they count as a pass (or even having the different categories have different weights toward your overall pass/fail check) It would be easier to get hatch without ever being downed (hiding the whole game) than it would be getting the hatch after being tunneled and escaping entirely after all.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3646323#Comment_3646323
I read enough and your points did not make any sense to me.
Hatch need to stay for the way to finish game fairly for both sides. And it's fix for hostage situations. So If you have different solution for finishing game, shoot it. If you don't, then hatch will stay as it is.
I posted this in another topic, but I have a general idea:
The hatch becomes the "judge" of the survivor. If they contributed enough (emblem progress, maybe a pip requirement) then the hatch is an escape like normal, and it counts the same as an exit gate escape. If they didn't contribute enough, the entity impales them when they try to jump into it and it counts as a sacrifice. No way to know beforehand which outcome you'll get, and key bypasses the check.
The hatch isn't exactly fair as it is, its a pity escape. It is indeed needed to prevent hostage situations (like EGC) but it can still deny the killer of a 4th kill they earned when one person just hides the whole time (essentially sandbagging their teammates in the process.) I feel like a change like this would make it more fair for survivors/killers who earned their escape/kill.
-
@Sngfun said:
Wiretap still wont see usage because it's only really useful on shack and really inconsistent otherwise. It doesn't help that it got nerfed some months ago.
He literally uses it on main building to get high value in this video. Basically any gen in the middle of a strong structure benefits from this.
-
They're still in the game, kinda. If you grab someone as they're getting in or out of the locker, you can still be blinded, just not when they're hiding inside.
-
@Hex_Llama said:
I think that, if all of the survivors are bots, the killer should have an option to DC without penalty, but the match shouldn't automatically end. There are circumstances where maybe you'd want to stick it out with the bots to finish whatever challenge you were trying to do and you should have a chance to do that.
@KSzerker said:
The killer should have the option to leave without penalty if all survivors are bots, but it shouldn't automatically end. I also think survivors should be allowed to leave without penalty if someone else leaves unless they're SWF with the leaver. Bots are boring to play with and against.
The only issue with the "leave with no penalty" option is that they would have to give up their BP/pips from the match. If you want to keep your earnings you'd need to stick it out regardless.
If the killer DCs, the survivors keep everything they earned and it counts as an escape. It would be in the interest of parity to have it work the same in the other direction.
-
@Shuma said:
Just make hatch a kill and give survivors the option to give up after a 1 minute bleed out/suicide option.
4 minutes is ridiculous and people who play killer abuse it to grief players.
You know, having the hatch be a kill would be an interesting idea.
Basically the game keeps track of your contribution to your team, and if it's past a certain threshold, its an escape. But if its under that metric, the entity skewers you out of midair as you try to jump into it. You wouldn't know which you were until you take that leap. Keys maybe bypass this check entirely, giving them a bit more usefulness.
Most people's issue with the hatch is when it is undeserved, after all. If someone played well in spite of their team they earned their chance at escape, while if they just waited out their teammates they deserve to share their fate. Would be interesting to try in a PTB. Would take a bit of tinkering to get a metric people could agree on, maybe making it so you have to at least pip or something.
-
@MatchLily said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3641643#Comment_3641643
It would be helpful for matches like that if they did some kind of que similar to CoD where if a player DC's any solo survivor can just get into the lobby and fill the Bots spot.
That would be a good way to combat that. Have had a few matches as a survivor where two team mates botted and me and the other survivor got ######### cause they wouldn't come unhook us so we just slowly got to deadhook.
The game would need to be entirely recoded to allow drop in/out connections. Sadly it would have to be a "DBD2" style change to allow it.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3639596#Comment_3639596
I feel like that's not true, doesn't MMR scale off of your highest MMR Killer?
Because I've been trying him a bit and I've been playing against higher hour players than I do on my mains, which doesn't always equal skill but jesus dude.
EDIT: Yes, MMR does scale off of your higher MMR Killers, they all get bumped to a certain point if you have other Killers high up. That probably explains it.
The idea is supposed to be that "if you know how to play an m1 killer, you'll probably already do well with other m1 killers"
...which obviously doesn't apply to any other killers that play completely differently.
-
@Pulsar said:
I would enjoy having Console-only Crossplay.
Might as well just quarantine Epic accounts at that point.
-
@mikewelk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636718#Comment_3636718
Two of the pistons are very obviously down, the third one is halfway down, and the left one is slightly coming down. It's not hard to see that. You just made that comment to attack me for not making use of the time or whatever your point was in that reply. They weren't on my level, they usually never are because that's just MMR, so no need for the sarcasm. It's common knowledge MMR is unbelievably bad. I would still like some example of how I could've done anything, never asked for the sarcasm.
Like I said, make the best use of your time. Thats all you can do when you're one of 4 in a 1v4. This isn't a game like League of Legends, there are no hypercarries, you can only pull your own weight and do what you can to help the others pull their own. Take the advice or leave it, not really willing to argue with you. Cheers.
-
@mikewelk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636704#Comment_3636704
Because my teammates don't belong in my MMR first off. The screenshot had a gen on 94-95% which I worked on since the game started so there's that. How do I waste the killer's time if he actively avoids me because he didn't get a hit after thirty seconds? Your logic is really flawed here. I was doing gens which is EXACTLY what the screenshot shows but you clearly didn't pay attention. I couldn't have done anything else that would've helped, if I'm incorrect about that please infrom me how I could've.
This reply is just a bunch of assumptions and blaming me for everything lmao.
The first two pistons are the only ones that look like they've moved, thats why I made the 50% comment, not much to go off of without video and certainly no reason to get defensive. Also my logic isn't flawed, You either waste his time or maximize your own, thats all you can do as an individual survivor. I also stated that even doing your best doesn't make the match winnable, you have to share agency with the other 3 players and they apparently aren't on your "pinnacle of survivor" level.
-
@mikewelk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636465#Comment_3636465
I managed to get some chases in, they didn't even land a hit (because they kept trying to mindgame a Blight main) and then proceeded to tunnel the person getting unhooked on the other side of the map...
You keep mentioning how you can outplay the blight, but why couldn't your teammates? You could infer that the blight is better than them and deserves the kills, especially since he had one out before a single gen was completed (hell, based on the screenshot it looks like there isnt a single gen past 50%)
If you're really good at wasting the killer's time, you should be doing that from the start to buy your team as much time as you can. If they ignore you, you should get gens done while he goes for someone else. Not saying this game was winnable, but you could have certainly done more.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633517#Comment_3633517
They would be, if the killer could be in four places at once.
What do you mean 'four places at once'? The killer doesn't tunnel four survivors at the same time. Actual gen tunnelling would involve survivors all ignoring all other gens bar one.
Tunneling gens doesn't necessarily mean one specific gen, it means putting gens before all other side objectives (hook saves, body blocks, healing, etc.) Maybe thats where we're not seeing eye to eye.
The only way your definition of tunneling a gen would apply would be if survivors were trying to get it done before it could be pop'd/PR'd/etc. I see the term used more as "gens before friends."
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633427#Comment_3633427
Tunnelling is not 'doing objective before anything else'. The killer is expected to constantly be on their objective. Tunnelling is where one survivor becomes the sole focus, that's why it's called 'tunnelling'. A killer that is constantly doing objective before anything else can just as easily get three hooks on different survivors as three hooks on one survivor.
'Gen tunnelling' is a new term coined specifically to draw up a false equivalence in an effort to get tunnelling off the hook. If survivors were to 'tunnel' a gen, they'd be incredibly easy to stop. Survivors can't work on a gen while the killer is on that gen, simple as.
As for the topic at hand: I do want to point out that we've had
- Boons killed off
- Healing nerfed
- Very powerful intel perks
- Plenty of complaints about survivors hiding
- No adequate solution to unhook denial
If survivors aren't allowed to heal, boon, hide, and sometimes even unhook, what are they supposed to do, other than gens?
The killers objective is to kill, so yes, killing one player as fast as possible is doing the objective before anything else (spreading pressure, protecting gens, etc.) The presence of alternative means of death (moris, sadako condemn, PH rite, tombstone myers, etc) is further proof that the objective is to kill, while hooks are simply the means to that end 90% of the time. Your inability to accept that is the only thing that makes it a false equivalence. As for
If survivors were to 'tunnel' a gen, they'd be incredibly easy to stopThey would be, if the killer could be in four places at once. But they can't, and even the best spread pressure is generally going to have at least 1 survivor unhindered to just hold m1 and hit the occasional skill check. This isn't to say that survivors aren't supposed to work on gens when they have the time, or even that tunneling gens is inherently bad, its just to say that such thing exists, and that there are survivors who will put gen progress over other things like saving teammates (aka tunneling the gens.)
You're acting under the assumption that the term is used specifically to say its a bad thing that survivors do, since thats how you feel about killers tunneling. It's a neutral term that describes a playstyle that involves tunnelvision on an objective.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633418#Comment_3633418
You are absolutely right, but the semantics of definitions and word use aside. Losing a gen or 2 in game is really not the equivalent of being eliminated.
Given the tendency for people to make simple equivalencies, generally without much thought involved, means using the term "gen tunneling" does kind of imply an equivalency to what players define as "tunneling" aka being chased again off hook. (I've used this term myself when it felt appropriate but in the context of this thread it seems off).
Frankly I think, like most "internet speak", "tunneling" is just ridiculous jargon and by giving the gameplay of being chased and hooked again a label, it simply created a generalized excuse that can be thrown around anytime anyone gets eliminated for any reason.
Failed to escape and died in game... well you must have been tunneled.
Its overuse as a negative trope in a series of subjective and ill defined circumstances results in it being almost as meaningless as the word toxic these days.
Oh I don't think the elimination aspect is similar at all, but the nomenclature is correct. Trying to ascribe it specifically to only include survivors is colloquial usage at best. I also don't think killers are trying to dehumanize the impact tunneling has on a player when they use it, they're simply using it to state "my opponent is putting their objective before anything else" which is accurate in terms of its usage.
-
@ratcoffee said:
i'm sorry i can't take any complaint about "gen tunneling" seriously. sure the most efficient survivor teams that spend every second on generators can be overwhelming but saying tunneling for that instead of "gen rushing" just feels like trying to create an equivalence between a killer making sure one player doesn't get to play the game and... survivors making sure a generator doesn't get to play the game?
"Tunneling" is derived from "tunnel vision," which has no differentiation regarding the sentience of the target.
Its literally just a term to mean "focusing on one thing and ignoring others." The pvp/pve difference in usage doesn't automatically make it a misnomer.
-
Obligitory Scissorman/Jennifer/Barrows Manor suggestion
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632627#Comment_3632627
Because online games are mostly are competive game or party game.
Competive games have stricter rules and banning people more often for their actions. Because they are serious games and mostly e-sport as well.
But asymmetrical games are not putting themself to this level. They are acting like party games and in party games, you really can't force people stay in match when they don't want to. DbD is not e-sport game or competive game. So you can't expect from them to act like they are.
And the thing is , DbD will never be competive game since they are already so bad with balancing even for a party game. In competive level game, they could not ignore all of those issues.
you really can't force people stay in match when they don't want to.What happens when a killer is stuck in a match they don't want to be in?
-
Clocktower
Jennifer and Scissorman, Barrows estate as the map
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621278#Comment_3621278
I didn't call it anything except ineffective at making the experience any better.
I never said you did. I was talking about the perception that people (like OP) have about it, and how they're setting themselves up for disappointment.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621191#Comment_3621191
Oh gee, the Killer has to stand 15 feet away now, surely that's enough distance for the Survivor to make it to the hook...right?
Thats not the point, people keep calling it "anti-camp" almost like they're trying to convince themselves that its supposed to do more than it does. Call it useless or weak but at least use the correct name for it so as to not inflate expectations.
-
@Sunbreaker7 said:
When the killer slugs the second last survivor to secure the final kill, even when the killer doesn't know where the final survivor is at that time and might be wasting a good chunk of time searching - Do you think this is okay or bad game design since the downed survivor is forced to just lie there knowing the match has already been lost but cannot end his part of the match like when on a hook?
The hatch is the bad game design in this scenario, since it forces the winning side to make such a decision in the first place. I get why the hatch exists (and wouldn't remove it without fixing its reasons for existing,) but adepts and some challenges require a 4k, which can lead people who wouldn't otherwise slug to be near required to.
As for the people who actually do it without a legitimate reason, they belong with the hide and seekers, they deserve each other. Its just a battle of stubbornness at that point.
-
honestly I hope his new chainsaw is quieter and has fixed animations
-
@Peanits said:
Improving tutorials is something we're always interested in, and any suggestions you may have are more than welcome. You're right that it's not a small game anymore, there's a lot more to learn nowadays if you're just picking up the game. Though one thing we do need to be careful about is overwhelming someone who's playing for the first time. Everyone's got their limit, you can only soak up so much information at once before stuff starts going in one ear and out the other. We really try to focus on the fundamentals (what is your objective, what kind of things you can find around the map to help you, etc.) because they are guaranteed to come in handy no matter what your first match is.
When it comes to specific Killers, though, then things get a bit more complicated. There's 34 Killer so far, so if each one had even a 2 minute tutorial, you'd be sitting through a lot of guides before you can start playing. That's a lot to take in, and I'm not sure how many people would be willing to sit through all that. We do have loading screen tips that appear the first few times you play against any Killer. These briefly explain how the Killer's power works and what you should do or not do. I'm personally a big fan of these. They make sure whatever you need to know is fresh in your mind, and the fact that they appear while you're loading means you don't have to go out of your way to find them.
My suggestion would be to have tutorials broken down with something like
beginner/intermediate/advancedor something similar, then having separate tutorials for each killer with a shorthow to play(against)tutorial pair for each of them that could be pulled from a list. The way a lot of fighting games do their tutorials nowadays is a great example, they let the player choose how much data they want to take in and give them something to fall back on when they run into something they don't know. Skullgirls in particular has an absurd amount of tutorials, but they're parceled up to allow players to research specific concepts they might be struggling with, so a lot of people will get the basics then use the rest as reference material instead of trying to plow through all of them at once. -
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619090#Comment_3619090
It'd also be a handy-dandy indicator for the killer to not trigger DS and instead leave 'em slugged, which means the stun duration becomes irrelevant.
Which is why people used to always bring UB with it, and could continue to do so.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619090#Comment_3619090
And having an indicator makes it a mandatory perk to run.
The entire point of the perk should be to make killers pause and actually reconsider whether they are tunneling the player or not. I'm really not a fan of the recent trend where somehow killers seem to expect to win without ever thinking anything more complex than 'chase the first guy I've hooked until they're dead'.
This entire 'having an indicator' has never really been a thing in the game. The only perk that does this is no mither, which is hilariously bad.
Where's the indicator for pain res being in play? I'm tired of letting go of gens every game to play around pr/dms for the past two years. Or the indicator for Eruption, which also has/had no warning that it was in play? The answer is there isn't one (and for the record, shouldn't be one), because part of playing the game is the unknown of what the other side is bringing to the table.
Is that why so many hex perks give indications when they are in play? how about exposed? If there was no indicators they would similarly have invisible power, but they have indicators for good reason. Game changing effects should have at least some type of decision other than "just assume its always in play bro."
Also your PR/DMS comparison is pretty weak, considering it takes a fraction of a second to let go of a gen when you see the person being hooked, letting you literally avoid it on reaction. If you get hit by it, you'll see it is in play and be able to use that in your decision making for the rest of the game as well. Getting hit by 1 DS doesn't give any weight to whether the other 3 players have it.
Not much comment on eruption since I haven't seen it once since its nerf.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619035#Comment_3619035
"Anti-tunnel is fine, so long as it doesn't counter tunnelling!"
That wasn't their point. Half of the strength of DS was having to assume everyone is running it, which in turn makes it not actually necessary to run in order to still get value. They were saying if there was some type of indication it was in play, that would remove that bonus, while still allowing it to have a longer stun and do its job to counter tunneling.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618889#Comment_3618889
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/83MGCMOLOS3K/image.png
you revived a 2-and-a-half-year old thread.
Its always people with less than 10 posts who do it, too. I blame the search function
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
Failed? No. Breaking them makes some loops more tolerable.
Annoying? Yes.
Before they introduced breakable doors (i refuse to call them walls, they're just doorways) they were fixing all of the god loops, so many of them were reintroduced along with breakable doors.
But hey, you could break them to get rid of them, so it was clearly an improvement over just having them be open in the first place.I preferred that short period of time where the loops were just fixed, and you didn't get 1-2 free rotations while the killer was forced to break. That and the fact that some of them are designed to make things worse when breaking (badham being a prime example) makes it feel awful as a mechanic, since it can only be engaged by killers. Just makes those doors feel like a trap, even worse when they have to be broken to reach a hook (badham again.)
-
@luvcraft said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617577#Comment_3617577
because this is an example of just one of a zillion reasons people hook suicide, and we're trying to discuss a good alternative that makes the game less awful for everyone else when that happens.
You can't fix entitlement, which is the main reason the game is so "awful." It boggles my mind how committed people are to not playing the game.
Also threadly reminder that this is uniquely a survivor issue, as killers have no choice but to DC and eat the penalty. There is no suicide on hook for them.
-
@I_CAME said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616755#Comment_3616755
This is really what it comes down to. Like what is a solo team supposed to do when they load in against a blight or nurse running four slowdown perks? You just die and there's no way you're winning those games. You shouldn't need to be in a organized group doing call outs and using clock maps to have a chance.
This is really what it comes down to. Like what is a Trapper supposed to do when they load in against a 4 man swf with coordinated builds and clock callouts? You just afk in basement and there's no way you're winning those games. You shouldn't need to be Nurse or Blight running four slowdown perks to have a chance.
In all seriousness, its almost like both sides have to bring their best or they will open themselves up to get stomped, and too much of the game is decided within the first few minutes. People sweat out of the gate on both sides because they can't afford not to, solo survivors and casual killers end up being collateral damage.
-
@C3Tooth said:
Hang on, Killer has a DC button too? I thought its only exclusive for survivors...
Nah, but killers can't kill themselves on hook if they're unhappy with the match.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615632#Comment_3615632
Yes that is my point. Inappropriate speech can be recorded and submitted as proof of a rule violation. It can be done.
True, but they apparently already have enough on their plate with dealing with cheats/hacks/etc, adding voice comms would require a good deal more manpower (assuming they're adequately staffed to handle their workload currently.)
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615434#Comment_3615434
To be fair pretty much every online game prohibits hate speech and harassment. Shoot, Steam, PlayStation, and Microsoft also prohibit these things and at least with PlayStation and Steam, they will enforce. So to say that moderation is the missing ingredient doesn’t really work as a reason why voice chat isn’t in DBD.
It gets a lot more tricky when crossplay is introduced, I do not believe (correct me if I'm wrong) any of the platforms have anything they can do about platforms other than their own. Which means you would need to know which platform the offender is using and be able to report them through their process. I know microsoft's systems lets you record a clip and submit it (not sure how sony handles it logistically, but I imagine its similar) but for the most part you would need to be recording and submit a ticket to BHVR (the same way cheating has to be recorded and reported.) Online account bans are different than ingame bans and have to be handled differently, after all.
-
@daffyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615455#Comment_3615455
>Because DBD isn't "other games."
What do you mean by this, this could be interpretted different ways.
>They do not want to facilitate that type of behavior, so they don't foster it.
@Ryuhi are you BHVR, what makes you think this when they actually do facilitate communications
ref:I could point out to other communication methods BHVR do currently provide that are not moderated but you seem fixated on moderation.
>The game isn't balanced around comms, ...
Again @Ryuhi are you BHBR?
Why do you think DBD isn't balanced around communications when BHVR constantly try and buff solo to SWF comms level?
Why then did DBD introduce the SWF option who will use 3rd party communications software?
DBD allow 3rd party communications software so tell me why it shoiuldn't be balanced around it?
>so I don't know what youre trying to argue with the last paragraph.
I understand you wish to avoid discussing the last paragraph
>The game is balanced somewhere between solo and swf, but not inherently on one end or the other.
Again... are you BHVR?
You cannot balance a game midway between the haves and have nots, that is impossible :)
>The changes you propose would make the balance have to be focused on SWF, which would require a lot of changes.
With the introduction of SWF these changes should already have taken place for balance but this discussion is only you telling me what you think BHVR want because I doubt you represent BHVR tbh.
>It would also put opt out survivors at an even bigger disadvantage.
You've mentioned this and I have answered this in the last paragraph you have ignored, you are failing to notice that players are already forced to opt out of in game communications.
Put simply if your arguement is that DBD should not wish to implement communciations due to you wish it be monitored unlike any other game then that is a poor argument for balancing and for the fairness of players in a computer game
The game's has a chat filter both on here and in the actual game. They have removed features in the game when they were used to target specific people (Leatherface's "face" skins) and have made very clear contributions to inclusivity (The David topic is still pinned for a reason.)
SWF was justified because survivors could lobby dodge until they got their friends. It was planned before that happened (and did happen before it was introduced,) but it made a further case for them to add the feature to the game.
"DBD allow 3rd party communications software so tell me why it shoiuldn't be balanced around it?" Because it's unenforceable, and there are people who use it not for an advantage, but just to play with their friends. Banning discord/console party communications/etc while the game is running would kill the game and they know it.
You don't need to condescendingly keep asking me if I'm BHVR. These are topics that have been discussed on these forums before, some of which we have received official responses on. Speculation is allowed to be done by an outside party, but to answer your question, no I do not work for BHVR.
Your responses are getting more frustrated/antagonistic so I'm going to stop here. Have fun in the fog.
-
@daffyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615434#Comment_3615434
I feel I have to repeat myself, other games who provide in game chat do not moderate their games why should DBD?
I could point out to other communication methods BHVR do currently provide that are not moderated but you seem fixated on moderation.
We live in a world where people are and aren't nice to one another, if someone in chat isn't nice you simply mute the player (for life) or not and move on.
You mention the opt out as an excuse, whilst it puts players at a disadvantage what we currently have is exactly that right now. If a player wishes to play at a disadvantage by opting out then they should be given the choice to do so, where currently solo players are forced to opt out/be at a disadvantage.
Because DBD isn't "other games." They do not want to facilitate that type of behavior, so they don't foster it.
The game isn't balanced around comms, so I don't know what youre trying to argue with the last paragraph. The game is balanced somewhere between solo and swf, but not inherently on one end or the other. The changes you propose would make the balance have to be focused on SWF, which would require a lot of changes. It would also put opt out survivors at an even bigger disadvantage.
-
@daffyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615421#Comment_3615421
Odd answer as moderation isn't needed in voice chat, like other games with in game communications
Considering this game has rules against subjects like bigotry/racism/hate speech/etc. there certainly is a need for some moderation. People get banned for things like threats and telling people to self harm in the post game chat, because the devs do not want that type of toxicity in their game.
And again, opt out excuse is pointless when it puts the player at a distinct disadvantage that is not being accounted for with balancing. Clock callouts aren't worth children screaming into their mic when getting chased/downed/missed a skill check/whatever reason. Look at how little it takes for people to give up and try to go next, you can't tell me they're going to be calm and courteous over voice.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615415#Comment_3615415
I am aware of that. But the problem is that a term that isn't defined accurately is pretty much useless. Because then you have the issue, that there will be arguments about what actually falls under that category.
Trapper for example is generally considered a killer without anti loop. But in reality he has pretty much the strongest anti loop in the game. Set a trap and now you get a free hit or down, if the survivor doesn't leave the loop.
The difference in trapper's case is the same as in hag's: Their anti-loop is planned ahead, it's not on demand. Thats why most people don't consider them anti-loop, since dropping traps midchase just guarantees the survivor making it safely to the next tile. You could then argue that shift W works against multiple killers' anti-loop, so it starts to get a bit messy after that.
I more accurately see people call them varying degrees of anti-loop. Someone like clown or pinhead you could say have strong anti-loop, while someone like hag has weak antiloop. Like you've surmised, nearly every killer in the game has some degree of anti-loop, but thats the fun part about colloquial usages: They're generally incorrect but still universally understood.
-
Because there can't be any moderation in open voice chat. Considering the chat filter and the fact that certain extreme topics are rightfully bannable, how would they enforce that on voice between randoms? Not only that, but you'd have to balance for voice always being present, while many players would opt out of voice to not have to deal with the toxicity it can very easily cause (putting them at a disadvantage re: balancing.)
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615383#Comment_3615383
I'm saying that the term "anti loop killer" is inaccurate. There is not a single killer in the game that cannot use their power for a little bit of an extra edge in a loop. That is not a hot take but a fact. Name one exception, I'll wait.
I'm pretty sure the term has to do with killers whose powers make a significant counter to traditional looping. Clown bottles or doctor shocks have far more impact than, say, wraith's cloak. Call it a misnomer but thats the colloquial usage of the term.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615049#Comment_3615049
I typically like your takes Krazzik but the problem with the ‘it’s too strong!’ argument for perks like WoO is that these perks rise to fill a vacuum left by the nerfing of other, more useful perks. WoO doesn’t do anything for survivors that they cannot do without the perk and killers actually have a direct perk equivalent (Zanshin Tactics) they refuse to run.
There’s always going to be a mediocre survivor perk (I never see this argument leveraged against mediocre killer perks so I can’t say both but if it happens feel free to correct me) that’s ‘too strong’ in some player’s eyes. If it wasn’t WoO it would be some other middle of the road perk that survivors receive non-situational value from.
Not every perk survivors have should be hyper situational. Some of them should be good *and* general.
Zanshin has two major issues against it:
Survivors lead the chase (barring zoning at pallets) and if a pallet was already used up, the killer was mostly likely there to see it used (especially if they broke it.)
Those two factors are a big part of what makes WoO so strong (efficient routing/resource status,) while Zanshin doesn't have the same impact. Some killers like Doctor can get use out of it in being able to deny a resource, but its kinda pointless on most of the roster.
-
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614929#Comment_3614929
If a match was already doomed (win for the killer), there is no reason to not count that other than to hide something.
An early hookicide is the same thing as a DC, which they currently throw out DC's because it skews the numbers. Its not about hiding something, its about assuming every match's outcome is based on the sum of its parts (how everyone played) moreso than near-impossible situations (3v1 at 5 gens.) They used to allow games to load with less than 4 survivors and just took away from the total gens required (which was similarly both unfair and bad for stats gathering, especially regarding balancing.)
-
If the person is smart about which pallets they're using (i.e. spacing them out to minimize deadzones) to avoid giving the killer his first down, they're actually allowing the other survivors to create a lot of gen pressure. The dynamic shift always occurs when one (or more) person is on the hook, so if that early time gets utilized well the killer will only be able to get a few hooks by the time the gens are finished.
If they're dropping them back to back and making a huge deadzone though, it can cause a lot of issues later like you surmised.
-
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614884#Comment_3614884
I remember reading that somewhere they didn't. I think it's always been an attempt to keep killrates a secret.
They've been clear in the past that they have no way of filtering out hookicides. And since one early hookicide can doom the rest of the team, it actually inflates the kill rates by an indeterminable amount. Trust me, I wish they would get thrown out like DCs do.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614277#Comment_3614277
It CAN be, but... you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that a blank perk slot is more meta than NOED or Ultimate weapon. You'd also have a hard time proving Legion more meta than Nurse.
Blank perk slot generally makes me thing of adepts, which makes sense since a new killer dropped. Probably a lot of people trying to get Chucky's.
-
@Benno101 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610738#Comment_3610738
The killer got themselves into that situation, they should have been paying attention to which hooks to sacrifice survivors on, just like survivors need to pay attention to what gens they do.
Survivors control the direction of the chase though, barring situations where the killer can zone them (like while pallet breaking.)
If multiple survivors run to the area where there is poor hook coverage, the killer can't just pick a different hook if they can't reach any. It's not uncommon for a corner of the map to only have 1-2 hooks in reachable distance. I also never understood this comparison, because you could easily argue against your point that the killer can similarly force a 3 gen by defending it from the start (meaning it would be the killer's fault, not necessarily the survivors'.) Both sides have scummy plays that force the other side.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610975#Comment_3610975
I mean they didn’t care about people with the mentioned phobias so what makes you think they will draw the line here at arachnophobia? I think a replacement option is way more reasonable to ask for to this point. Especially considering that the technical requirements are obviously there
because people can learn from mistakes instead of blindly repeating them. And yes, again, I concur that having replacement options for relative killers is a good thing that should happen, but also that they shouldn't introduce more without addressing it first.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610355#Comment_3610355
Oooor….
*Obligatory Mooks‘ phobia mode comment incoming*
have specific phobia modes for phobias where it makes sense (just a skin needing to be changed)
can be used for Coulrophobia as well - have Clown be displayed in a neutral cosmetic that’s not triggering (and is still a good cosmetic on its own)
same can be done with an Arachnophobia mode. Examples are the games ‚Grounded‘ and ‚Lethal Company‘ - those have goofy alternatives of course but it’s not a rule that the alternative has to be goofy.
Trust me, I've always been a supporter of having replacement options for existing phobias like emetophobia and coulrophobia, but the thing is they're killers that are already in the game, so they can't exactly be removed. Since there isn't a spider killer in the game yet, the winning move would be to just not add one. Or just not care about their userbase and have people DC when they go against her like some people already do with the existing killers that invoke phobias.
-
plz no
we already have enough phobias covered as it is
-
Strange, there are more "I called it" posts than there are agreeing with OP (unless I missed one, I don't see any.) In fact there are multiple saying killer side doesn't agree with this guy. Also OP only has 3 upvotes at the time of this post.
SB and Lithe aren't a problem, and most people agree with that.