ShrimpTwiggs
ShrimpTwiggs
About
- Username
- ShrimpTwiggs
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,030
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Rebel_Raven said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:For me, toxicity is doing unnecessary things purely to spite somebody. Whether that be holding the game hostage, or going out of your way to make the other person's game as unfun as possible.
From the survivor perspective, getting whacked and facecamped on the hook because you did really well in a chase. Or getting bodyblocked in the basement for unreasonable amounts of time. Or one of your teammates working with the killer to farm the other survivors. Those are a few examples.
From the killer perspective, the survivors purposefully holding the game hostage when they could leave at any time, abusing sound triggers for no reason other than to annoy you (fast-vaulting or sliding over a pallet repetitively), and there's t-bagging and flashlight clicking, but that's pretty minor.
For both sides, there's toxicity in the chat or messages and DCing for no good reason during a game. Those are my views, anyway.
Being camped because you did well as a decoy is basically the natural result, imo.
Why on earth would a killer want to give you another opportunity to annoy the hell out of them all over again? What costs the killer more time? Dealing with you on the run, or camping you to death?
Sure it ruins your fun, but how bad are you putting the screws to the killer and getting in the way of theirs?But yeah, noise abuse is annoying. Forgot about that.
True, but it's usually pretty obvious when it's done for strategic reasons or just to ruin your game. In certain instances, when the killer already has a couple hooks in and there are still two or three gens left and they throw the game away just to make sure you die, it's pretty clear that they weren't doing it to win.
-
For me, toxicity is doing unnecessary things purely to spite somebody. Whether that be holding the game hostage, or going out of your way to make the other person's game as unfun as possible.
From the survivor perspective, getting whacked and facecamped on the hook because you did really well in a chase. Or getting bodyblocked in the basement for unreasonable amounts of time. Or one of your teammates working with the killer to farm the other survivors. Those are a few examples.
From the killer perspective, the survivors purposefully holding the game hostage when they could leave at any time, abusing sound triggers for no reason other than to annoy you (fast-vaulting or sliding over a pallet repetitively), and there's t-bagging and flashlight clicking, but that's pretty minor.
For both sides, there's toxicity in the chat or messages and DCing for no good reason during a game. Those are my views, anyway.
-
I love to run stealth, so my perk choices are Urban Evasion, Iron Will, Premonition, and your perk of choice. I usually run Self Care, but Empathy is pretty good. An unpopular opinion, but I really like Botany Knowledge, especially after the healing nerf. If you're altruistic, I'd recommend We'll Make It. If you want to be harder to catch in a chase, Sprint Burst is good, but I prefer Lithe. If you know how to use it, Dead Hard is pretty good as well. Another unpopular opinion, but I really like Hope as an endgame perk. Really, it's up to you. If you want to play stealthy or be tough to catch in a chase, you just need to find the build that suits you best.
-
The Christmas one was my favorite. I don't hate the Clown theme, but it definitely went on way too long. I would call it my least favorite.
-
I'd like a bit more consistency on that front, but I'd put it on the back-burner until some of the bigger problems in the game are worked on.
-
Insulting the devs doesn't help anybody.
-
I don't think his traps should be as RNG as they are. I think there should be a set time it takes to break out of them and maybe the survivor has to hit skillchecks. Great skillchecks would speed up the escape a little. Maybe rework some of his add-ons to increase the time it takes to break free from the traps. I think that would help him a lot.
-
@CoolAKn said:
@Fabyoulust said:
im not sure what you mean "more dynamic" like we throw them on the hook now how much more aerodynamic can it getNow I am imagining a basketball star killer who dunks survivors on the hook.
"How's this for a kobe?"
-
What's with the posts about ruining the fun for each other? First the one about trying to get survivors to DC, now this one. I don't think I've ever seen a community so divided.
-
That only makes things worse. So they're telling us that they planned for SWF all along, yet they balanced the game around solo players for the vast majority of it's existence? They planned for a game mode that nullifies a fair chunk of perks and creates a blatant imbalance in the game? And, after constant complaints, they're only now addressing it? Knowing this doesn't make SWF any less broken. It only makes me dissapointed in the devs.
-
@Peasant said:
Silly friends! Tapping is for David!I thought tapping was for Tapp.
-
From most to least (in my experience)
1.) Billy
2.) Trapper
3.) Myers
4.) Hag
5.) Wraith
6.) Pig
7.) Huntress
8.) Doctor
9.) Leatherface
10.) Spirit
11.) Clown
12.) Freddy
13.) NurseI play on console, so that's why Nurse is on the bottom. And this list is kinda off the top of my head, so it's probably not 100% accurate.
-
Where's the fun in ruining the game for others? This post makes me all the more disappointed in this community.
-
@fisher8257 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
I think the ones that are opposites are coincidental. I mean, the Huntress and David aren't similar, but they aren't opposites either. The original three killers and four survivors aren't exactly opposites either.The Trapper was a strong leader while Dwight is...... Dwight. Meg loved her mother dearly and was a very free and active child was Bill boi was locked up and abused. The Wraith was an immigrant and didnt have many options money wise and was broken when he found out he was killing people at his job while Jake lived a life of luxury and just peaced out in the woods with his giant pile of cash
But who says that those killers are directly linked to those specific survivors? What if the Trapper and Jake are linked? They aren't exactly opposites. And Dwight is considered the leader of the group, so technically that's something they have in common.
-
@Wahara said:
I..never said you were arrogant. I said that I displayed arrogance to you because you accused me of it. You know, the "If they think I'm this, I'll show them this" rationale. Okay? You are right, I don't speak for everyone, but you are mistaken in believing that is what I am doing. When I say that it is easier for straight players to project their sexuality onto their characters, that does not mean I am saying I have a difficult time my projecting my sexuality onto my character. It does not mean that I am saying all LGBTQ folks will struggle doing this. It means exactly what it states, that by comparison, it is more difficult.If you want to argue (and this where I suspect you are back pedaling) that the fact race or gender is easier to represent is why it was more likely to be put in, then I agree with you. I just don't know where you intend on going with that since that isn't related to the arguments I was putting forward. Your first post was with the full intention of discrediting my comparison by highlighting the differences between race and gender from sexuality in terms of obviousness. Now, you are arguing that you only meant to show that obviousness was the basis for why they were more likely to be included. The comparison is not being used as point to argue what is or what isn't likely, it is being used as an argument to determine what is fair. The aforementioned is also why I do not accept the claim stated in the third parenthetical.
While the fact DBD characters have sexuality that is unconfirmed is not an explicit exclusion, the point is that it still functions as one, given that heterosexuality is the default. Heterosexuals are not really forced to use their imaginations in the same way that LGBTQ folks are. Assuming that all the characters were explicitly confirmed to be heterosexual, your argument that that one could simply use their imagination would still apply. But you wouldn't, because as you previously admitted, that would be unfair. The onus is on you to justify the still remaining unfairness. Why should the fact that heterosexual players have an easier time, generally, relating to their characters than LGBTQ people be the status quo?
You're right, maybe the developers didn't want to. I mean, I didn't create the game. I have no idea what their processes were. That isn't necessarily a good reason not to ask for LGBTQ characters, though. Simply because they don't want something doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea or that efforts of persuasion aren't worth it. Personally, I think survivors are imbalanced at high rank play, but I don't think the developers really want to do anything about it. Does that mean no one should try and convince them otherwise? No. I also don't really know what you mean by "pressure" What exactly do you have in mind? People keep using words throughout this discussion like "forced" in particular, as if those of us who want LGBTQ characters are ready to storm BHVR HQ and hold them at gun point.
As to your hypothetical regarding the ability of a gay character to relate to a straight character, this is about options. It would not be an issue because he could play a gay character if he wants.
The main purpose of my post was to explain probable reasons why the devs didn't include sexuality in their characters. That's where I was coming from with that point. And as for the original comparison, it didn't hold up because you stated situations with a massive difference. If the devs made all the characters white men, that directly excludes other groups. But in DBD, their sexuality is unknown, so it doesn't shut anybody out. If the characters were all confirmed as straight, then your comparison would make more sense.
And not stating the character's sexuality doesn't exclude anybody. All because YOU assume heterosexuality is the default, doesn't mean everybody does. Judging by some fanart, there are a lot people who have no problem imagining the characters as gay. The character's sexuality is completely unknown, so there's no right or wrong answer. And I never said having to use your imagination is unfair. If only one side had to, then it would be but both straight and gay are forced to use their imagination in DBD. That's fair to me.
As for your comparison of balancing the game to adding LGBT characters, there's another big difference. The balance of the game is vital. The sexuality of the characters isn't. As for the reason not to add LGBT characters, again, nothing is confirmed. Some of the characters could very well be. I don't think pressuring the devs into doing that is the best way to go about it. If they want to confirm character's sexualities, then they should do it if they want. And, again, what if a gay person was trying to relate to a character and they were confirmed as straight? Wouldn't confirming character's sexualities lead to more problems?
When it comes to the devs being pressured, it can come from many places. Whether people look down on them for not explicitly stating a characters sexuality or simply making a post asking about it. Not all pressure is bad, but I think it's better that they don't feel pressured at all on this topic. I think it's something that they should come to their own decision on. Make a post asking for it if you wish, but forums are made for discussion. People may agree or disagree. I personally prefer if they left the character's sexuality unknown.
-
@Wahara said:
Those are some dense paragraphs, Shrimp. I'll wait a little bit to actually try dissecting all of that, because the thoughts expressed appear a bit disjointed to me and I'm not sure how I'm going to structure my response without it looking really disorganized.Though, I will say on the subject of arrogance, you were the one who misrepresented what I said and used it as a basis for accusing me of arrogance, so I showed you what real arrogance looks like. For what it's worth, for you in particular, I will return to base line. Your post appears to contain what seems like back pedaling, but I can genuinely see that you are trying, and see no indication that you're being intentionally obtuse. (Which is what triggers the ever living [BAD WORD] out of me) I see no reason to punish you for that. The tone is sincere. That's not to guarantee anyone else is safe from me turning the ######### switch back on. I will bring it right back up to ten once I start noticing weasel tactics.
A full response will be given tonight or tomorrow. I'm not sure yet.
You can say that I'm arrogant if you want, but I'm not the one trying to speak for a whole group of people. To make things more organized, I'll shorten my points.
1.) You said that it's harder for gay people to imagine these character's as gay compared to straight people. You don't speak for everyone.
2.) This is a visual game. Therefore, that's the median the devs chose to include more groups of people. It's more convenient that way, because this is a visual game. The lore isn't necessary, therefor, less time will be dedicated to it and the devs will drop unnecessary pieces. Sexuality isn't something that can be seen visually, so it's less likely to be put in the game. If this game were a dating simulator, that information would be more relevant.
3.) When I repeated what you said in my other post, it wasn't with the intent of being rude. It was to clarify the points I was addressing.
4.) My point of addressing race and gender compared to sexuality still stands. None of the characters in DBD are confirmed straight, so there's no exclusion. If you see them as straight, that's on you.
5.) The devs could very well not have included sexuality because they didn't want to. If they don't want to confirm that, they shouldn't be pressured to do so. And what if someone who is gay was trying to relate to a character that was confirmed straight? Wouldn't that make the problem worse?
At the end of the day, this isn't your work. If the devs don't want to confirm a character's preferences, they don't have to. It's not a big issue if there's no answer to a character's sexuality.
-
@Wahara said:
No, it doesn't. You're resorting to mis-characterization, now. I did not say that everyone who is LGBT will have a hard time imagining their characters as having their orientation. I said that it is harder for them to do so compared to players who are straight, given that heterosexuality is the assumed default. How would you like that to be spelled out for you more clearly? Would you prefer a pop up book?Again, and I asked you why whether or not sexuality is easier to display or not is relevant, not just to the question of whether or not sexuality should be confirmed, but to anything.
Oh. Wait a second. Finally! You actually made a new point! One that hasn't been repeated! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm so proud of you. Your point is still bullshit, of course, but I'm proud of you. Good job. The claim, if I understood correctly, is that "Race and gender are easier to display than sexuality, therefore there is less excuse to not include them and that they have priority over sexuality."
The problem is that both of those conclusions don't hold water. You cannot connect the ease of something or the difficulty of something to whether you should do something. Sometimes, the harder thing to do takes priority over the easier thing to do and vice versa. See? Now if you had made this point the first time instead of rudely repeating what had already been addressed several times, you wouldn't have gotten such an attitude. Was that so hard?
And no, you mentioned gender, but the only thing you actually attempted to dispute in detail was the contrast with race. Within the context of a video game, I will argue that sexuality is easier to display than both gender and race. Gender and race both require coding to express. By comparison, a few simple sentences is much easier.
Fine. You said that gay people have a harder time seeing these character as homosexual compared to straight people. My point still stands. You do not speak for all of them. Drop this arrogance of yours. And my argument does still hold up. Because none of the characters have been confirmed as straight, there is no exclusion. If you assume that they're straight, that's on you. Your feelings don't change that.
And I don't think you did understand my next statement, because I never said that race and gender have priority over sexuality in general, I said it was prioritized because it is easier to show visually, therefor more likely to be included in the game because this is a visual game. It's easy to see someone's race or gender, but not sexuality. And as for the race and gender thing, I used both. I said that both race and gender are easy to see visually, but sexuality is not. I also never said that the ease of something connected to if it should be done, but it does connect to what's more likely to be done. But I guess 'ease' isn't the correct word, so I can see where that would cause confusion. A better word would be 'convenient." The devs have to make character models for the game. Since they have to make the characters look like some kind of race or gender, they are more likely to use this as the median for inclusion, since, again, this is a visual game. Since a lot more of their time will be dedicated to designing the character models, that's what they will use to show a variety of groups. It takes care of two things at once. The lore however, isn't necessary. It's not needed, therefor, they'll dedicate less time to it. Certain traits will be left out. If the devs don't think that a character's sexuality is important, they'll leave it out. If this game was a dating simulator, where a characters sexuality was more relevant, then they would use that as a median to include different sexualities.
And when I repeated what you said in my post, it wasn't with the intent of being rude. i was doing so to make clear what points I was addressing.
As for if they should include the character's sexuality, that's entirely up to them. If they don't want to label their characters, they shouldn't be pressured to do so. The purpose of my posts was to state the most likely reasons they didn't include it, and why it's not a big deal if they don't. At the end of the day, the devs showed the race and gender of the characters because this is a visual game and that's the median they chose to include different groups. Sexuality doesn't fall into that category. And did it ever cross your mind that the devs didn't include that in the lore because they didn't want too? Why, then, should they be pressured into adding it? In my opinion, it's better if they don't. If homosexual people have a harder time seeing character as gay, then what if one of the characters they were trying to identify with was confirmed straight? Wouldn't that make it even harder to identify with them?
-
I think most can agree
-
I acknowledged the reasons for my anger and how, specifically, you could avoid being subject to it. Therefore, you cannot blame me for the reaction you received nor can you reasonably call me a hypocrite. It is understandable to be frustrated when the same points such as the one's that you had made are repeated near verbatim. Here, you don't do much better, though you are a bit more long winded about it.
The argument you make in your first paragraph is entirely dependent on the argument you're making underneath the claim I've made that "heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default", so I'll begin with that to knock two birds with one stone. You are ignoring the point that I made that while someone is LGBT has the ability to imagine their character as possessing their orientation, they do not have the ability to do that as easily as heterosexual players do, since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. It is inherently easier as a straight player to project their sexuality onto their survivor/killer of choice. They do not have to go out of their way. LGBT folk do.
Further, you have not justified why, even if race or gender is easier to show, how that is relevant to the discussion of whether sexuality should be explicitly confirmed. Still, interesting to note, it is only the comparison with race that is disputed but the comparison with gender is left alone.
Actually, my argument holds rather well, because you having trouble imagining these characters as gay is a you issue. You do not speak for all gay people when you say it is hard to see them as gay. I find it extremely arrogant that you try to do so. Judging by the swaths of fanart, there are people who have no trouble seeing characters as gay. And my argument holds regardless, because, as I've said, nothing is confirmed and your feelings don't change that. The devs never said that the survivors are gay or straight. All because you assume that they're straight, doesn't mean you're right or wrong.
And the purpose of the comparison with race wasn't to say that sexuality shouldn't be confirmed. It was to show why one is easier than the other. This is a visual game. The characters don't have to have lore in this game so you can leave out details, but you do have to be able to see them. That's why one takes priority when used for inclusion. Since you have to design character models, you have less excuse to not include certain groups that can be seen visually. But sexuality is much harder to show this way. And read my post again. I did include gender. Lastly, I will stand by calling you hypocritical. You want acceptance , but you wrote me off and told me to "show myself out." As for whether sexuality should be confirmed or not, I've already given my opinion on that front. I personally would rather it be open to interpretation.
-
@ChesterTheMolester said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:I think the ones that are opposites are coincidental. I mean, the Huntress and David aren't similar, but they aren't opposites either. The original three killers and four survivors aren't exactly opposites either.
Ace and Hag, both have radically different approaches to Hope and Luck.
Nurse and Nea - Responsibilty
Clown and Kate - Both are entertainers with different upbringings.
Doctor and Feng - ?
Huntress and David - Almost complete opposites in virtually every way. David has a rich family in an urban country, and fights for his pleasure and reputation
Huntress lives poorly in the woods, worries about starvation and fights just to survive.
The huntress and David are both large, violent people. And the clown and Kate are both entertainers. Like I said, they're different, but not complete opposites.
-
@Wahara said:
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
You're going to ask me to "show myself out" on a public forum and claim that I'm the one embarrassing myself? And I read the post. It doesn't change much.
Your comparison of gender and race to sexuality holds little ground. If you made all the characters explicitly white men, that directly excludes others. Whereas none of the character's sexualities are confirmed in DBD, therefor no one is excluded. It's just not confirmed. If all the characters were confirmed as heterosexual, you comparison would make more sense. We would have a reason to ask why some of the characters aren't gay. But, since some of the characters could very well be gay, they aren't excluded. The comparison falls flat.
"Why should I have to play pretend?"
Both sides do, because nothing is confirmed.The characters can be either gay or straight.
"It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something."
This is a you issue. A lot of people have no issue imagining some of the characters as gay. You even stated it in your own words. "Assumed." You can assume the characters are gay all you want, just as someone else can assume they're not. No one is right or wrong. Nothing is explicitly confirmed.
"Why is race and gender okay to portray but sexuality isn't?"
No one said it wasn't okay, but race and gender are much easier to show visually without having to include it in a bio. Since the characters have to be visual in this game, it's easy to include people in this way. I personally think it's better that the characters sexuality is left to the audience's imagination. Makes it seem like their ships and fics hold more weight. Again, if you want the character's sexualities to be shown visually, I doubt it'll be received well. At the end, it's the dev's choice.There are some things I can agree with. I think saying it's not necessary isn't a good argument. Because at the end of the day, no lore in this game is necessary. But that only makes this post all the more ridiculous, because it's essentially an argument over things that don't matter.
I can also agree that representation is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean we should pressure the devs into including it, nor does it make it explicitly necessary in DBD.
Now do us both a favor and drop this attitude you've got going on. You want representation and acceptance, yet your first reaction to my opinion was to "show myself out."
-
@Wahara said:
Everything you just discussed was addressed literally one [BAD WORD] page ago.Please show yourself out.
No thanks. This is a public forum and I'll comment on your post if I want.
-
I think the ones that are opposites are coincidental. I mean, the Huntress and David aren't similar, but they aren't opposites either. The original three killers and four survivors aren't exactly opposites either.
-
For all you know, some of the survivors are gay. Why are specific labels necessary for you? If you want to see the character as homosexual, go ahead. There's no reason you shouldn't unless you assume that they're straight. If you do, that's a you issue because, judging by the fanart, a lot of people don't have trouble viewing some of the characters as gay. Yes, a lot of characters in main stream entertainment are straight, That doesn't automatically make the characters in DBD heterosexual. As for comparing it to race and gender, there's the massive difference of visuals. You don't have to read Claudette's backstory to see that she's black or female. It's incredibly obvious. Sexuality isn't something you can show visually without using stereotypes and I doubt that would be acceptable.
-
@RSB @GrannyonAcid Really? Why can't an event happen without everything breaking?
-
@lay said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
They're releasing an optimization patch for console some time in December. They also said that they'd be doing small tweaks in a few patches to prepare for the bigger changes.I appreciate it mate
Any time.
-
They're releasing an optimization patch for console some time in December. They also said that they'd be doing small tweaks in a few patches to prepare for the bigger changes.
-
Us Jakes aren't so bad as long as you don't let us near a toolbox.
-
Happy Birthday, man! Save me a piece of cake!
-
@Nickenzie said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:This thread seems chill. I could really use that right now, since I'm stressing out like crazy. It's currently four in the morning where I am and I haven't gotten a wink of sleep because tomorrows the first day of my first job. I have to get up in two hours.
Do you need me to pray for you? You seem like you really need it from reading this and yes, I been in your situation before (currently in your situation right now) and I definitely feel your pain.
Please do. I don't think I'll be getting to sleep any time soon and, to make things worse, I get an upset stomach when I don't sleep enough. I honestly have no reason to be as nervous as I am, but I can't shake it. I don't know how I'm going to make it through the day. How about you? Do you think things will go okay on your end?
-
This thread seems chill. I could really use that right now, since I'm stressing out like crazy. It's currently four in the morning where I am and I haven't gotten a wink of sleep because tomorrows the first day of my first job. I have to get up in two hours.
-
Actually, I think making a few changes every patch is the better way to go. If the devs just suddenly did a massive redo, it would be pretty jarring for people, especially if they're new to the game. And releasing small changes makes it easier for PTB testing. The small changes are easier to adjust to, easier to test, and easier to give constructive feedback on.
-
I know you want these people to be punished for their actions, but you can't name and shame, man. You should cover up the name of the other player.
-
@slingshotsurvivor said:
Dudddd said:
slingshotsurvivor said:Ps4 Pro 4.5 months old and now the fan just started turning on when I play DBD.
I THOUGHT I WAS IMMUNE 😭😭😭 It hasn't even turned 6 months old yet!
I also randomly get a blue screen that flashes and goes away while playing. 😢
Anything I can do?
My fan only turns on at the start screen where you have to press X other than that its quiet
It does quiet down eventually...not always though 😕
Maybe something is clogging the vent. Is there any dust blocking where the heat escapes?
-
Where do you keep your PS4? If it's in an enclosed area it can overheat faster.
-
Geez, this thread.
-
@WhateverIGuess said:
It probably won't. The Entity is eternal and it's goal is to take over the world. It will slowly but surely take more and more survivors while turning the old ones into killers, once all of their hope is lost. That being said, good always wins at some point so, if there ever was a planned ending:I think that the survivors first have to find an opening, something to make the Entity vulnerable and safely escape. I think they'd have to start breaking rules of the entity, refuse to play by its rules. Attacking the killer, trying to kill him or something to break the balance. Then, once the Entity is vulnerable and weak, they could escape.
I like the theme everyone's using for survivors, that they return to their normal lives and wake up in the real world.(I will not include licensed survivors)
Dwight: He would suddenly wake up in a forest, near a campfire, not knowing what exactly happened. Every night he would hear the Entity's whispers, making him believe he actually was somewhere.
Jake: Would wake up in his forest home he lived in before the Entity consumed him. The only thing giving him faint flashbacks would be his trusty toolbox.
Meg: She would wake up mid-sprinting, running out of the woods as fast as she can, looking around and seeing the Entity's spider-like legs all swarming her, then, once she'd run out of the forest, she'd turn around and ask herself: "What am I running from?"
Claudette: Would wake up in front of her computer, seeing all the people on her forum asking where she is, she'd look out the window to see the Entity's spikes slowly disappearing in the forest.
Nea: Would wake up on the rooftop of Crotus Prenn Asylum. Back in the old days, when it was still working, she'd ask a Nurse for directions, only to realise the Nurse she spoke to was the Nurse we all know and love. Running as fast as she could, elegantly and before making her swift exit, she'd look at the Asylum again and see a completely ruined building.
Ace: Would wake up to a bad life, the people who he scammed would find him eventually, and this time, Lady Luck wouldn't save him.
Feng: Would wake up at a bar, drinks and computers on the tables. It was her LAN party she had planned. She'd develop a big phobia of doctors and hospitals, everytime she'd plug her notebook or phone, she could feel a slight zap and see the Doctor's face as a reminder.
David: Would return to his normal life, fighting, drinking, thinking that if he could beat the Entity's killers, he could take on anyone that ever challenged him.
Kate: She would wake up near a campfire, the song of her guitar would wake her up, no one playing on it, it would play by itself. It would play the Survivor theme we all know, reminding her of the awful encounters she experienced.
I always liked the idea of the survivors waking up to their normal life, possibly forgetting what happened or brushing it off as a nightmare, though they would always wonder. Maybe little time has passed in the real world compared to the years they spent in the entity's realm. Maybe they would meet in real life one day. I don't know, but that kind of stuff is cool to me.
-
Like a killer that could pounce on a survivor? I think it could be cool. It could be an anti-loop killer. What if they had other abilities also, like the ability to scale walls?
-
A gamer is anybody who plays games. There are casual gamers and competitive gamers. One being a casual gamer doesn't make them a fake gamer. I honestly can't believe people believe otherwise.
-
Not every survivor is entitled. You're just going to end up punishing people for something they never did. You're not doing justice. You're going to contribute the vicious cycle of toxicity that made this playerbase the waste dump it is. You're proof that there's entitlement on both sides.
-
@Giche said:
@Darktronik said:
This has happened to me beforeTonight, It happened again. 3 survivors was dead (the third one was in between death/last hook animation), and I was hooking the last one.
He could free himself off of the hook. I waited him to gain control and move a few steps. Hit him. And got a free sprint burst. Then I could hit and kill him (again) after that.
I mean, how fair could this possible be? And if it were next to a hatch, next to a opened exit gate? For how long does one have immunity after kobing?
This time I was not recording the game, unfortunately.
" Stop camping and tunneling and be nicer, you filthy killer main.
You're not supposed to kill everyone, why being so mean ? "
More or less.
These pictures get me every time.
-
The imbalance in this game has been discussed for a while now and genrushing is one of the biggest concerns. But it's important to keep in mind that the imbalance isn't the fault of the survivors and they're just trying to do their objective. Of course, there are those jerks who think they're pros and will spam you with "lol git gud" or "EZ PZ" but trash talk comes with any multiplayer game. Just set your messages to friends only and you'll be way better off. As for the balance, the devs mentioned something about possibly adding secondary objectives to slow games down a couple streams ago and they're working on Freddy, so hopefully things keep improving.
-
I'm no vet but I can definitely agree that the ranking system needs to be changed somehow. I think that the safety pip should either be removed entirely, or it should be harder to get.
-
Welcome to the forums, man!
-
The Hag. I can't stand facing her.
-
I play on PS4 as well. The frame rate is a bigger threat than the killer.
-
Take care, man.
-
These seem like pretty cool ideas! Nice, man.
-
Maybe the survivors would have to do skillchecks as well, like searching a jigsaw box.