ShrimpTwiggs
ShrimpTwiggs
About
- Username
- ShrimpTwiggs
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,030
- Last Active
Comments
-
Dickety dicety you made this post twicety.
-
Posts like this give me hope for the game and the community. Devs, we love this game and we don't want it to die out. But to keep things going, you need to take a good look at the state of your game and see just how skewed the balance is.
-
The hatch symbol only appears on the HUD when the hatch is open, so if there are two survivors left, it won't come up.
-
Right now, it doesn't do anything. They could at least let you know when someone gave you props. Like "LordSuckMyDingle333 gave you props."
-
If the killer lands a hit on you, it's almost impossible to lose them since the blood stands out so much. If there were small things, like more shadows and blood streaks on the ground to obscure blood trails, then that would help this map out a lot. That, and better places to hide. The whole place is so open that for survivors and stealth killers, you can see them from miles away.
-
"The devs are taking away our freedom to play how we want!" Yet you're defending sandbagging, which puts the victim in a situation where they have no control at all. And stop with that 'solo play' defense. There's a difference between playing solo, and deliberately getting others killed. All because the devs don't want to reward terrible unhooks, doesn't mean you can't do them anyway. You just won't be rewarded for it.
-
It's easy to say what you would do if you were in charge. I'm not going to say that the game is perfect. There are definitely issues in balance that need to be worked on, as well as matchmaking and the report system being a mess. But there are also things to consider, like the cost it would take to make these changes and the impact they would cause. Do you realize the impact on the game it would cause if you were to change every aura perk or remove auras? Or if you were to remove the heartbeat? Tier III Myers would reek havoc, and removing the heartbeat would sap away the unique strength of stealth killers. The Pig would just be an ordinary killer with traps. Why play her when the Hillbilly can ambush better, has better map control, and an insta-down ability? Perks like Insidious would be useless. The Nurse and Hillbilly are already strong, viable killers. Removing the terror radius, especially from killers that can cross large areas so suddenly, could make them broken. Being in control isn't as easy as it might seem.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
So if two people finish a gen at the same time, it's chosen at random and the other is locked. That would create nothing but frustration and only add to the clunkiness of the gameplay. As for the gas can, perhaps you find a gas can before working on the gen to prevent that? There's the main difference between locking gens and secondary objectives. Secondary objectives slow down games in a way that the survivor still feels like they're making progress. Before you start a gen, find a can of gas. If you start working on a gen without one then you have no one to blame but yourself when that roadblock hits. And it could be made where you couldn't even start working on a gen until you find gas to prevent the confusion. With gen locking, it just brings your progress to an abrupt stop. It doesn't really feel like pacing as much as it is sudden jarring stops. Secondary objectives like finding gas would flow way better. As for how it affects the endgame, in the case of secondary objectives, the survivors have the choice to plan ahead. How about instead of just finding one can of gas and fixing one gen, you find multiple cans and fill up multiple gens to make the end game smoother? The survivors still have some control. The situation you stated, where the survivor is struggling to finish the gen but runs out of gas, that scenario is all his fault. If he thought ahead and found a can of gas before working on that gen, he wouldn't have been in that situation. It would suck, but it would be something he could improve from. Not to mention all the new ideas this could create for improving perks or items. Pair that with a tutorial to teach new players just coming into the game, and the game will be in a much better place.Again the idea needs testing and polish. Maybe there is some method to selecting which gens have priority. But to say that you need X amount of gas to finish a gen only serves to make the game less accessible, period. There is no other way to slice it, add more stuff to do and you make the game harder to learn. It's basic logic. Being forced to go find gas or do something else can be frustrating, just look at games where Ruin is too well hidden and doesn't go down until there are like 2 survivors left. That can be immensely frustrating for survivors (which I know if it goes down fast that's frustrating for killers, but that's a separate issue) because you have this other thing you need to do on top of the normal objective. Gens should be the only objective, there just needs to be limits on how fast you can do them.
I really need to know why you are defending secondary objectives so hard when the outcome will obviously have an effect on the entire game. We don't want that or need that. We only want something that affects the highest tier players because that's the only place where gen rush is a problem. Why do we need to make survivors do other stuff when the game just needs something to stop the most optimized survivors from rushing their objective? Why do we need to over-complicate the game with new mechanics and core fundamentals when it just needs something to balance out on the upper end of the spectrum?
@Peanits said:
Sure, if it's a game of only new players. But I could get paired with someone playing the game for the first time and work on a different generator than them. When mine goes off, they're going to be really confused as to why they suddenly got kicked off the generator and can't fix it anymore.They would arguably be just as confused, if not more so, by having to do something other than their primary objective. If you are in a party with this person you can simply explain it to them. And again, they see a gen pop and a lock icon, that is a very clear indication that you can't do the gen because another was just completed. If necessary you can even add a timer/clock to the UI to show when it can be done.
Like really any argument you make against a gen completion limiter can be made against secondary objectives and apply even moreso because of the fact that it's just more to do. If you have 1 thing to do but are locked out from doing it, maybe it's confusing but not overwhelming. If you have several things to do it's overwhelming AND confusing, as well as tedious. It just leads to more issue down the road.
Really guys take a step back and think about what would happen if you had to do secondary objectives. Think about how much work it would take to make the system, integrate it smoothly with the current design, adjust perks/etc. to work with it, how new, solo, and SWF players will be affected. It's not a good solution when you actually go through all the motions, and it's not necessary for every game. We only need something for the top end players, not everyone.
How about one gas can per gen and you could work on it the rest of the game? It doesn't need to be as convoluted as you're making it out to be. And the difference between finding gas cans rather then finding Ruin is that there'll be many gas cans scattered around the map, meaning that it wouldn't take you too long to find one. And all because there's one more mechanic in the game to learn, doesn't mean that it'll make it overwhelmingly difficult. If anything, I'd prefer if my main objective involved more then holding one button and pressing another one now and then. As for the a secondary objective being tedious, I would find it far more irritating if I had to leave a generator and hide for twenty seconds every time a gen gets done. Bringing the game to a screeching halt isn't fun.
As for any argument applied for one side applies to another, I disagree. Gen locking punishes you for doing your objective, secondary objectives don't. Gen locking is sudden and clunky, secondary objectives aren't. Gen locking would leave the game stagnant, secondary objectives allow for new approaches to perks and items. Yes, it involved more learning, but 1.) tutorials can help with that and 2.) finding parts or gas is a very straightforward thing to do that wouldn't take long to get a grasp on.
-
@Peanits said:
@Nickenzie said:
Peanits said:Could be a nice little QOL change for higher graphics settings. I would steer clear of it on lower presets just so people will lower end hardware don't get a framerate hit just for some trees outside the map. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to do, just plop some trees randomly outside, stick a couple static 2D images in the background far enough that you can't tell the difference.
Though like @ShrimpTwiggs said, I would put this way down on the priority list. Gameplay-wise it would have no effect, but it'd still be nice to have one day nonetheless.
Kinda off-topic but @Peanits WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR KATE DENISON PROFILE PICTURE?
I changed it. I started to feel bad for teasing people with it.
Looks at new profile pic
I'm not complaining. -
@thesuicidefox said:
@Peanits said:
A lock icon would tell you that you can't work on it, but it wouldn't tell you why you can't work on it. It's not as intuitive as it seems. A new player isn't going to see that and think, "Oh, I can't work on this because that other generator got powered recently." There's a disconnect there. People aren't just going to put two and two together. There is no logical link between one generator getting powered and the rest being locked off, that's something they'd probably have to google if they want to figure out.The "why" doesn't exactly matter here, as long as it's understood that no gens can be completed until the lock goes away that's all you need.
Look you guys are completely overcomplicating this. Ever single suggestion for a secondary objective only hurts solo and new survivors. It increases the gap between players that communicate and those that don't/can't. You don't want that, you want a solution that's non-intrusive to the current mechanics. Adding new objectives means that timers may need to change, perks may need to change, all of that. It'd require an entire rework of the game's core design.
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
My point was to indicate flaws with your idea. Because the same idea might apply to secondary objectives doesn't mean it will affect locking gens any less. In fact, it would affect it more since people would still be able to jump right on a gen right at the start of the game, always know which ones are worked on, know when a gen is almost done, and when to go hide. Not to mention that with Alert, which will no doubt be a meta perk, they can see your aura as well so they could share when you've kicked a gen and where. With secondary objectives, it still requires you to do something beforehand to even start those gens and any information shared about, say, the location of parts or gas, would still have to be found first. Not to mention that the idea is very flexible. There's more things that you can do with it then locking gens. And there's always the question about what would happen if two survivors were to complete gens at the same time. Would one, at random, be complete and the other locked? Because that would make things even more frustrating.I'm not saying my idea is perfect. Obviously it would need testing and polish like anything else. What I'm saying is that adding more objectives just clogs up the game that we already have. It changes things too much, and ultimately creates more problems than it solves. I mentioned Alert because you mentioned it being a meta perk (maybe I misread, I digress).
If two gens are done at once than the game picks a gen to finish and locks the other. There's nothing more to it than that, and yes it could be a tad frustrating to have a gen almost done but at the same time you can easily just go start another one. Or hang around and wait out the timer, to finish the gen. It would be a lot more frustrating to be working on a gen only to suddenly not be able to because you have to go find a gas can or some other nonsense. You have to keep in mind, as the game winds down and people die, will such a task be reasonable? The answer is no, as it would basically force you into a losing position. With a gen completion limiter that sort of thing wouldn't happen, ESPECIALLY if survivors are doing gens at an acceptable pace. In those cases, the limiter wouldn't even matter. All it means is that you can't do multiple gens simultaneously, which is the crux of the problem. It's pretty simple. Like what if you were struggling to finish a gen and had a full opportunity to do it, but then couldn't because you had no more gas? That's pretty sucky right there. But with my idea that's not an issue because the game is more or less unchanged. It's only different in that you can't blaze through gens.
Really guys, just think about it. Would you rather have to go find some other objective and be forced into a bad position or would you rather just limit the pace at which the current objective can be done? I just doesn't make sense to muck up the formula that has been so carefully crafted over the last 2 years when all that we need is just something simple to slow down the game at the highest level.
So if two people finish a gen at the same time, it's chosen at random and the other is locked. That would create nothing but frustration and only add to the clunkiness of the gameplay. As for the gas can, perhaps you find a gas can before working on the gen to prevent that? There's the main difference between locking gens and secondary objectives. Secondary objectives slow down games in a way that the survivor still feels like they're making progress. Before you start a gen, find a can of gas. If you start working on a gen without one then you have no one to blame but yourself when that roadblock hits. And it could be made where you couldn't even start working on a gen until you find gas to prevent the confusion. With gen locking, it just brings your progress to an abrupt stop. It doesn't really feel like pacing as much as it is sudden jarring stops. Secondary objectives like finding gas would flow way better. As for how it affects the endgame, in the case of secondary objectives, the survivors have the choice to plan ahead. How about instead of just finding one can of gas and fixing one gen, you find multiple cans and fill up multiple gens to make the end game smoother? The survivors still have some control. The situation you stated, where the survivor is struggling to finish the gen but runs out of gas, that scenario is all his fault. If he thought ahead and found a can of gas before working on that gen, he wouldn't have been in that situation. It would suck, but it would be something he could improve from. Not to mention all the new ideas this could create for improving perks or items. Pair that with a tutorial to teach new players just coming into the game, and the game will be in a much better place.
-
I think there are bigger issues for the devs to focus on, right now.
-
Seriously, when I'm on the hook my fellow survivors do jumping jacks on the hag's traps.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@Tsulan said:
Oh i read the whole post. But making gens take longer by slowing them down isn´t the solution. Gens are already boring af as of now. Making them even slower by your suggestion, would make people fall asleep mid game. Also your proposal would result complicated for new players which wouldn´t understand why their gen suddenly works slower.It wouldn't be hard at all to convey to the player that gens are locked. Just simply put an 'lockpad' icon over the generator UI and prevent gens from being finished. Pretty clear and obvious, whereas a secondary objective is not that clear.
@Tsulan said:
We already have a tutorial. Just add the new objectives into the tutorial and new players learn it from scratch. Do you know Eve Online? THAT is a complicated game! With all the perks, loadouts, weapons, damage types, etc. But new people join every day.
Eve Online is complicated and not at all accessible to new players. That's the problem here ACCESSIBILITY because anyone can put in the time to learn all the ins and outs of something. In fact I would bet even the bet DBD players still have stuff to learn about the game, that's just how it is. But making a game more complicated only reduces the accessibility even further. Going back to the cars stuff, if automatic didn't exist it would be a lot harder for new drivers to learn to drive. Can you still learn it? Yes but it's more difficult and time consuming.My point in this thread is that secondary objectives are not a solution. It just muddles the game and makes it more difficult for new players while also screwing over any solo players in the process. It's uncommon enough for low ranks to finish gens and escape, with secondary objectives it would probably never happen. What I'm suggesting is just a slight alteration to the current formula, one that only effects optimized survivors. At low ranks, you never see multiple gens popping at once. The solution needs to affect only the top tier players, not everyone. Secondary objectives affect everyone.
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
1.) You stated that survivors could simply 99% gens and that the killer can just go around and kick them. This makes Alert a meta perk. They would 99% a gen and, if another gen was completed, go off and hide for twenty seconds. If you happen to kick a gen, then from a pretty good range, they'll be able to see it as well as your aura. The killer would waste their time searching a pretty large area and/or doubling back after kicking just about every gen in order to counter it.So then a completely non-meta perk now becomes viable? That's kinda what we want here. The other alternative is a secondary objective, in which case such perks would still be mostly useless on top of the fact a whole bunch of them would need a rework to fit with the new mechanics.
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
2.) It doesn't open as many doors as secondary objectives. There's nothing new in the game play and most unused perks and items will remain stagnant. With the addition of secondary objectives, new ways to adjust perks and items come with it, which could take that edge of difficulty off of newer and solo players that you're worried about.By "opening doors" you are also making the game less accessible in the process. See above.
Also, the gameplay doesn't need anything NEW, this is where you guys keep falling into the "feature creep" trap. You realize that game development has costs right? These things don't just happen, you need people to design, program, and test it. That's time. That's money. And there's no guarantee it would work. It's the exact reason they haven't completely gutted the game to fix problems and instead are doing things in small doses over a long time, because big changes = big risk. They could very well completely fork up the game with new mechanics. Simply adding a buffer to gen completion is way less risk, time, and money, and would likely yield more fruitful results.
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
3.) It punishes success. Outside of perks like Tinkerer, which are supposed to give you an upper hand in some situations, there shouldn't be a punishment for doing your primary objective.It's not a punishment. Punishment would be something like "finish a gen and get injured". This isn't that. It's "you can't do blow through your objective super fast you need to pace yourself". Furthermore, the limiter would only really apply to the highest tier players. New players, or just low rank players, would be more or less unaffected by it, which is what you want. You don't want to make the game harder for everyone, just for the players that optimize the most because that's where the problem is.
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
4.) It adds more of a buff to SWF. Due to communication, they all know when someone is about to complete a gen and which gens have been worked on, which means that they wouldn't mistakenly go to another gen to work on it for the twenty seconds only to find that it's already at 99%. In all fairness, however, this could also apply to secondary objectives in some cases.You pretty much nullify your own point here with the last sentence. Exactly that will be the case with secondary objectives. In fact one could argue that secondary objectives would create a greater gap between solo and SWF than a simple gen completion limiter, as you would be able to call out that you are going early to start on those objectives or just that you can coordinate doing them faster. It just makes the game more top heavy, the opposite of what we want to achieve. We want to smooth out the game at all levels such that low rank play remains the same while high rank play changes a bit to make it more fair to killer. With secondary objectives it just makes killer even better at low ranks.
You guys are defending an idea that just honestly isn't very viable. It's too costly to implement, would have too great an affect on the game at all ranks, and ruin quite a lot of the work that has gone into the game over the last 2 years. We don't need that, we just need a simple solution that makes the game more fair for killers that play against the most optimized survivors because that is the only place where gens getting done too fast is a problem.
PS. Going back to cars, if you had a problem with your automatic transmission would you rather completely remove it to install a manual transmission or would you rather they just go into the cars computer and tweak the functionality of it? That's the crux of what we are talking about here, and any reasonable person would rather take the easy/cheap/fast solution over the hard/expensive/slow solution, especially if the former has more potential for better results.
It wouldn't only make Alert a meta perk, it completely counters your idea that kicking gens would counter the 99% problem. Long story short, Alert would make kicking gens just short of useless in this playstyle and if the killer tried to play against it, they would waste that time they have. And with secondary objectives, there's all kinds of new options to tweak perks and shift the current meta.
And I disagree that adding secondary objectives making the game less accessible. Tutorials are a thing and there's nothing overtly complicated about searching around the map. You're acting like all survivors are idiots. The secondary objective doesn't have to be something difficult. It could be as simple as adding a few parts scattered around the map to find. Chances are, there would be more on the map then actually necessary, so you wouldn't have to search way too long to find them. And while you have a point about cost, the devs have already shown interest in secondary objectives in their latest stream, indicating that it's in the realm of possibility. If they were unable to do it, they would never have brought it up, or they would've turned it down.
Yes, it does punish success. By someone completing a gen, they bar someone else from doing the same. This means that their primary objective, completing gens, is locked. This would feel clunk and irritating, playwise. Secondary objectives would work with the flow of the game, and they would slow it down as well. With your idea, someone would 99% a gen and then go and hide for a while. They wouldn't waste time going to another gen and working on it.
My point was to indicate flaws with your idea. Because the same idea might apply to secondary objectives doesn't mean it will affect locking gens any less. In fact, it would affect it more since people would still be able to jump right on a gen right at the start of the game, always know which ones are worked on, know when a gen is almost done, and when to go hide. Not to mention that with Alert, which will no doubt be a meta perk, they can see your aura as well so they could share when you've kicked a gen and where. With secondary objectives, it still requires you to do something beforehand to even start those gens and any information shared about, say, the location of parts or gas, would still have to be found first. Not to mention that the idea is very flexible. There's more things that you can do with it then locking gens. And there's always the question about what would happen if two survivors were to complete gens at the same time. Would one, at random, be complete and the other locked? Because that would make things even more frustrating.
Your idea would not only make the game feel clunky, but it leaves things very stagnant. By adding secondary objectives, you could tweak things like maps and perks to help find them or increase their utility. That would not only add more options for builds, but it would take that edge of difficulty off of newer players that you're worried about. Not to mention things like the tutorial for newer players which could easily explain the secondary objective.
-
I disagree.This game isn't that hard to learn as a survivor. Looping is still incredibly powerful and it doesn't necessarily take years of practice to do. It may be hard to master in terms of jukes, positioning, and counterplays, but these are learned with practice as you climb the ranks and face more skilled killers. The main objective is pretty simple and adding things to find to do said objectives would help slow games down in a way that wouldn't feels as clunky or as boring as simply adding more time to gens or inexplicably stopping gen progression. And finding things doesn't necessarily take a lot of skill either. I guess it depends on the severity of the second objective. It could be something small, like finding a couple parts scattered around the map, or something severe, like flipping a corresponding switch for each gen in order for it to work. I play a lot of solo survivor and I myself wouldn't mind having to find a few parts to repair gens. It gives me something to do besides hold one button and occasionally press another one for eighty seconds. And if there's concern for newer players learning to play, it could very well be included in a tutorial. The generators are the survivor's primary objective, and punishing them for doing gens isn't the way to go, in my opinion. What you said about it altering the flow of the game is true, but don't you think that it could alter the flow for the better? Perhaps maps can be tweaked to help find these items, thus making them more useful. Some perks that have been left by the wayside can be made to assist in finding these items, thus making it easier on newer players and solo survivors. Adding new content to the game not only adds more gameplay for the survivors, but opens many doors for perks and items while slowing the games down.
A few problems with your idea, are:
1.) You stated that survivors could simply 99% gens and that the killer can just go around and kick them. This makes Alert a meta perk. They would 99% a gen and, if another gen was completed, go off and hide for twenty seconds. If you happen to kick a gen, then from a pretty good range, they'll be able to see it as well as your aura. The killer would waste their time searching a pretty large area and/or doubling back after kicking just about every gen in order to counter it.
2.) It doesn't open as many doors as secondary objectives. There's nothing new in the game play and most unused perks and items will remain stagnant. With the addition of secondary objectives, new ways to adjust perks and items come with it, which could take that edge of difficulty off of newer and solo players that you're worried about.
3.) It punishes success. Outside of perks like Tinkerer, which are supposed to give you an upper hand in some situations, there shouldn't be a punishment for doing your primary objective.
4.) It adds more of a buff to SWF. Due to communication, they all know when someone is about to complete a gen and which gens have been worked on, which means that they wouldn't mistakenly go to another gen to work on it for the twenty seconds only to find that it's already at 99%. In all fairness, however, this could also apply to secondary objectives in some cases.
Overall, I prefer secondary objectives to adding a timer between gen completion. It adds more gameplay, it doesn't punish you for doing what you're supposed to do, and it opens new doors for perks and items.
-
In my opinion, someone running No Mither should start off healthy and, after they're injured, they are unable to heal. They should also make the killer unable to see the symbol indicating if someone's running it.
-
They'll probably rework it into something else.
-
They need to take a look at Myers' perks. They're some of the worst in the game.
-
@Lowbei said:
Gay Myers (Luzi) said:I want the old menu music back
Well I want you to stop denying my friend requests, but we cant always get what we want darling
What are you in for this time?
-
I agree. Though streamers aren't in complete control of what their viewers do, they do have a large impact on them, especially if they have a younger audience, so they should really be careful about the example they give. As for the toxicity, I've seen toxic people on both sides. Survivors seem more entitled because they're the majority. Honestly, I wish this community would get along more because we need both sides to make the game work.
-
Premonition
Iron Will/Borrowed Time
Small Game
Urban Evasion
I've always loved playing stealthy, so that's my go-to perk build.
And my main item is a medkit. I play solo and I never rely on the others to heal me. Also it comes in pretty handy against Freddy. -
I think this would be a pretty neat feature. The ability to choose the difficulty of your daily ritual would help newer players start off and keep things interesting for experienced players.
-
Don't mind me. -
Not a bad idea. As it stands, there's not much of an incentive to rank up.
-
I don't think that abusing any bug is fine. It's wasn't okay when survivors climbed on that rock in Autohaven Wreckers and it's not okay now. I'm don't blame you for disconnecting when someone is abusing a bug like that, but I don't think it was the best way to react. By disconnecting, you put the other survivors in an even worse place. It's not your obligation to do this, but I think it would've been better to stick around and help the others out the best you can. At the very least, try to get a few more bloodpoints instead of throwing them all away. It's not fun, but might as well get the most you can out of the match. I can understand why you disconnected, but it wasn't the best thing to do, in my opinion.
-
Camping isn't an exploit. It's an intended mechanic that can be punished by doing gens. The devs have stated many times that camping is a viable strategy and it isn't going anywhere. Being camped sucks, but it happens and if you want to punish it, you'll give the others all the time you can, whether that be leading the killer on the best chase you can, or not giving up on the hook.
-
They're already discussing the nerfs so your claim is seeming less and less true.
-
I think that if you're in a SWF group, you shouldn't be able to see the killer's perks until everyone either gets out or dies.
-
Calm down, man.
-
This would probably make him way too OP, but I've considered the idea of him being able to hit while cloaked. Of course, it would need to be balanced out. Maybe it has a charge time and the survivors get a slight auditory cue so they have time to react. It would force him out of cloaked form and if he misses, he has a longer recovery then usual. That would probably make him OP, but I like the idea.
-
Despite the issues the game has, you guys do great work! Thanks for making such a cool game! We appreciate you guys.
-
Well, they would probably have to make unique maps for KWF because the current ones would be too small. And there would be a lot to consider with how the killers abilities interact with each other. I like the idea of considering what killers compliment each other best. It would be cool to have a game mode that's something along these lines but it probably won't happen.
-
And the survivor is a Japanese woman in a high school uniform. Why? N-no reason.
-
@Someissues said:
@AshleyWB said:
If you think about it, the only ones going on strike are the evil survivors who want to uninstall the game. Good for the rest of the playerbase.Apparently Ochido told his fans to attack as well and strike
If the Ochido fans strike, the community would be a much better place.
-
I hope you're making a distinction between whining and legitimate complaints about the game, because if there's an issue that needs to be worked out, the community should voice it.
-
As someone who plays a lot of Wraith, I'm really looking forward to these changes. It has the potential to open a lot of doors into how he can be played.
-
@Speshul_Kitten said:
Orion said:@AsePlayer said:
@Doom_Punk said:
@AsePlayer said:
@Doom_Punk said:
@AsePlayer said:
@Why_Are_You_Salty said:
Just stop I'm sick of seeing salty survivor mains upset because the devs are nerfing survivors too much. All they're doing is making it fair for the killer half of you rely on crutches to get out such as DS and other OP perks well think about what that does to the killer. It makes them want to rage quit and smash something if they're bullied by toxic SWF and anyone in general. This game has been going in the right direction ever since BHVR broke away from Starbreeze. As someone who plays both killer and survivor when I play survivor do I like the changes maybe not, but do I agree with them yes everyone should have fun in this game. The only thing I think should be adjusted after the DS and Hatch nerf is the flashlights or addons for the flashlight. Survivors shouldn't have an extra chance unless they're bad at the game.
Git gud.
Also Killers have their crutches too, but you seem to only want to focus on the survivor ones. Totally not biased I see.
Lol, no Killer perk is as good as the Survivor perks are.
Feel free to list any Killer perk that's a 'crutch' and I will shoot them down. Go on, I dare you to.
NoED.
A perk that can be broken before it ever actually sees use, and the only way this perk actually works is if you play like an idiot. Get the totems before you power the last generator, if not, at best one person is going to die from it unless you play badly.
Keep going.
Well if we're gonna go on your logic flashlights are countered by staring at a wall, no?
Or is it inconvenient for something you disagree with to actually have a counter so you say it's unfair.
Walls are not guaranteed to be everywhere you down Survivors. Some maps (Coldwind Farm maps in particular) have almost no walls to speak of.
Keep going.
Just like DS isn’t guaranteed to be hit by the survivor.
Yes, but the difference between walls to counter flashlights and DS, is that those wall aren't always an option. Sure, you might miss DS, but that is entirely on you and not something the killer can have much control over.
-
I like her. I've always loved stealthy gameplay so I lean more toward the sneaky killers.
-
How you voice your opinion plays a huge part. If you come shouting "KILRS OP, ALL OF U R FAGETS! GAME 2 EZ 4 KILRS!" without giving any actual reasoning, then of course people are gonna flame you.
-
@Orion said:
The only buff she needs, IMO, is to have her traps trigger immediately upon being placed on a Survivor.That would be way too OP, I think. It's pretty much just a built in mori at that point, but without the same requirements.
-
@AsePlayer said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@AsePlayer said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
Would it be unreasonable if the Pig could recollect her traps after survivors discard them?Yes
It's fine that you disagree, but could you elaborate? I'd appreciate constructive feedback.
The main issue I have with the pig in general is that the traps are RNG so potentially you're just dead if you can't find the right box and the pig knows where the last one is. Giving her even more opportunities to use her RNG traps would be pretty annoying imo. They were meant to be a limited resource, that's how they were balanced.
@Doom_Punk said:
I don't like the idea of buffing traps because they're an RNG mechanic. It's bad enough getting two thrown on your head when you luckily get the first one off, but having them come back is just.. no.I hate RNG. I would more buff her ambush to not be trash instead.
I see your point, but her traps don't have enough impact on the game, at the moment. Her map control is weak and she has no tools to help her in the chase. Maybe buffing her ambush to be faster would help, but would that be enough?
-
I really wish more people on both sides would see things this way. Both survivors and killers are necessary for the game to work. It doesn't always have to be 'us-vs-them.'
-
@GT_Legend2 said:
I think maybe it should be an option but to an extent. Maybe if she had less overall, like 2/3 and could reuse them then we could see some change that would benefit the pig to an extent and even add some skill, like which box did they remove it?Yeah, I was thinking that it could possibly add more to her skillwise to try to reason out what box the trap was removed and knowing when the best time is to recollect them.
-
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
If you think i should adept please jump off a cliff. If you think adepting makes a game fun please hang yourself.
This game is not fun anymore. period.Speak for yourself, man. I play mostly survivor and I love most of the changes. If you don't want to adapt, then why don't you just leave and do the rest of the playerbase a favor?
I do want to play this game but it seems the devs don't. I'm expressing my opinions on these updates. I thought it was an important part of updates and changes?
Ah, yes. Telling people to hang themselves is an essential part of giving one's opinion.
Because it's always "git gud" or "adapt" nothing else can be said by those people. It is infuriating
Telling someone to adapt to changes in the game is nowhere near as terrible as telling someone to hang themself.
Stop trying to change the topic.
I was pointing out the problem with your statement "I'm expressing my opinion on the updates." Telling someone to hang themself isn't expressing your opinion. I made the next response because you tried to state your reasoning by saying 'they always say to adapt!' It wasn't me trying to change the topic. I was responding to a comment you made.
-
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
If you think i should adept please jump off a cliff. If you think adepting makes a game fun please hang yourself.
This game is not fun anymore. period.Speak for yourself, man. I play mostly survivor and I love most of the changes. If you don't want to adapt, then why don't you just leave and do the rest of the playerbase a favor?
I do want to play this game but it seems the devs don't. I'm expressing my opinions on these updates. I thought it was an important part of updates and changes?
Ah, yes. Telling people to hang themselves is an essential part of giving one's opinion.
Because it's always "git gud" or "adapt" nothing else can be said by those people. It is infuriating
Telling someone to adapt to changes in the game is nowhere near as terrible as telling someone to hang themself.
-
@hMM said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@hMM said:
If you think i should adept please jump off a cliff. If you think adepting makes a game fun please hang yourself.
This game is not fun anymore. period.Speak for yourself, man. I play mostly survivor and I love most of the changes. If you don't want to adapt, then why don't you just leave and do the rest of the playerbase a favor?
I do want to play this game but it seems the devs don't. I'm expressing my opinions on these updates. I thought it was an important part of updates and changes?
Ah, yes. Telling people to hang themselves is an essential part of giving one's opinion.
-
@hMM said:
If you think i should adept please jump off a cliff. If you think adepting makes a game fun please hang yourself.
This game is not fun anymore. period.Speak for yourself, man. I play mostly survivor and I love most of the changes. If you don't want to adapt, then why don't you just leave and do the rest of the playerbase a favor?
-
@AsePlayer said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
Would it be unreasonable if the Pig could recollect her traps after survivors discard them?Yes
It's fine that you disagree, but could you elaborate? I'd appreciate constructive feedback.
-
kek -
This post deserves a bump. I hope someone on the dev team sees this.
-
@Grey87 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
If you're leaving because you refuse to adapt to the update, good riddance. We don't want your kind around here.Not wanting to adapt and not having fun/getting bored is not the same thing.
Why would you want to "adapt" if you don't enjoy the game? If you try to play and you see that it's not fun, why keep playing? If someone loves the game then believe me they will try playing and adapting , like I did myself all this time, but I also don't really enjoy the game and didn't okay for a few weeks now and this update doesn't make me want to come back.That's why I said 'if you're leaving because you refuse to adapt.' If the games not fun, then by all means, stop playing. It's perfectly understandable to stop playing a game if you're tired of it. But the fact that the OP bothered to make a post on the forums announcing that they're leaving, that paired with the fact that it was made just after the update, is a telling sign that there's more to it then being bored. If they're just bored, then why waste time going to the forums and making a post about it? Just play a different game if you're bored of DBD.