SirCracken
SirCracken
About
- Username
- SirCracken
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@emetSdidnothingwrong said:
Fun fact: this endurance stacks with other endurance effects, so you can take 2 hits while injured under the right situations.
That has to be a bug right?
-
@Sharby said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3456316#Comment_3456316
How is being one health state lenient?
Is resilience OP too since it gives you a permanent 9% boost to all actions? Thus increasing pressure and punishing killers for dropping chase or playing hit and run?
Because unless the killer is terrible you're going to get injured at least once during a game. Usually many more times. That is why it is lenient.
Resilience is one of the strongest survivor perks in the game. And is very commonly run by good players. If you're trying to argue that survivors being injured isn't good for them, you're not doing a good job of it.
-
@miniwengsel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3456315#Comment_3456315
The other requires way more. Being injured isnt a reson to get a strong effect like haste. At the moment when I play survivor I never let anyone heal me, because I know ones I got injured I am uncatchable.
Exactly. The perk encourages you to stay injured since the value you get from it only increases the longer you remain unhealed. It's like Resilience, but on crack.
-
@BlightedDolphin said:
From the wiki:
”This aspect to The Singularity's Power has not been officially confirmed yet, nor have the values been found in the Game's code.
However, there is video-evidence supporting this mechanic, as well as precedence set by other Killer Powers, such as The Mastermind or The Nightmare.
For each Slipstreamed Survivor, the duration of Overclock Mode is increased by +1 second, up to a maximum duration of 8.7 seconds.”
So yes Overclock does increase for every Slipstreamed survivor, but there’s no set values in the games code or any mention of it in game.
Maybe it’s a bug or a mechanic added last second?
1st Wesker and now Hux. I'm getting sick of important details of a killer's power being hidden from the player.
-
@Sharby said:
Unlike any of the other haste effects, this one requires you to be injured. Having one health state is plenty cost for a boost.
Pretending like its unconditional is dishonest.
Read the post before commenting.
I never said it was unconditional. I said multiple times throughout that one of the problems with the perk was how easy it was to access. Being injured is a really easy thing to achieve. And is not at all fair for the considerable boost in speed the perk gives you.
-
@jayz666 said:
The knight is a boring easy mode killer that takes no thought or skill at all and in most situations has no counter play all around miserable to go against worse than nurse and she’s unbearable at times why was this even an idea
I get that most people don't like versing knight but this thread is just a bunch of incoherent ramblings after a lost game. Despite getting him to P100 I'm fully aware of the flaws of Knight's design.
You should point out those flaws constructively instead of creating a post solely to vent.
-
The perk used to always do this. I always assumed that it was bugged when it stopped doing so. I guess they finally fixed it.
-
@mustdogen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3452897#Comment_3452897
And that's the problem,this killer only viable if survivor don't know how to play against it.
Once they know what is EMP,this killer has no tool to use at all.
EMP is too strong Which makes the killer's ability tooooooooo unreliable.
That's not true at all.
When I did get a game where survivors kept going for EMPs I focused on keeping people infected with hit&run tactics. If they popped an EMP to get rid of a bio pod near a gen I came back, easily replaced the pod, infected the survivor with a 2nd pod that I usually removed afterwards, teleported to them to almost always land an easy hit, then leave them and check my cams for other survivors.
The Singularity is a killer that requires you to perform lots of small actions in a short period of time if you want to do well with him. As well as good map knowledge. Kinda like Knight. He is a very good killer with a high skill ceiling. And people just haven't practised enough with him to judge him fairly.
-
Reading this thread was a trip.
I've been playing nothing but Singularity since he came out and have won almost every single game with him. Since I'm a Knight main, I started playing him as a pressure tool to keep survivors occupied across the map since that's what came to me naturally when I saw how his power worked.
It turns out that being able to survey most of the map with a click of a button and instantly teleport to survivors who don't constantly pop EMPs is really good. Whenever someone EMP'ed one of my pods it was always really quick and easy to replace it and keep forcing survivors to get off gens if they didn't want to get chased by a killer with permanent Spirit Fury most of the game.
His biggest weakness is actually the same as Knight's; terrible map design. The new map is horrible for him. As is most indoor maps. But he's definitely not weak if you get something like Wreckers Yard and have your camera micro-game on point.
-
Wesker's infection builds up slowly over time and its progress is clearly visible. Unless the Wesker decides to ignore all gens and decides to camp and tunnel you, you will always have an opportunity to cure yourself before reaching maximum infection.
Don't compare every single form of Hindered in the game across different killers like they're equal. A lot of them aren't even good.
-
@Pulsar said:
Completely unacceptable.
This is what happens when you don't have your daily Snickers Bar.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
It's more like they weren't expecting it and you messed up whatever they were planning on doing... or that you won (sore loser)
So rather then learn that players will use whatever perks they want... they'll say those magic words
I've been wanting to try something like that... I wonder if I'll get the same messages (console player)
I have no idea what she was planning on doing if that's the case. She had Resilience so you would think that she would benefit from a build that's designed to slow down healing.
It's not even a strong build. But I don't think players like her really care.
-
Yeah, a dumpster fire of poor arguments. I had no idea I'd be kicking the hornet's nest when making this thread.
Later I'll be creating a massive complication of all of the counter-arguments in this thread and the problems with many of them. If I don't die from a brain haemorrhage in the process, it should be up later today.
-
@TerraEsram said:
Two thing when I play survivor
- Don't care if i'm gonna loose or not, even when I'm the last survivor standing and the trap is close.. I'm gonna play at the very end for trying to survive the longer I can
- . The Only problem with Knight, is that a lot of other player play him for camping the three gen at the beginning... And, Honestly... When I'm against one who try to chase everyone... The chase is ######### cool, I love to try to avoid "two" killer at the same times
You can't be mad against this kind of survivor... We can understand that... When you go against a lot of Knight/skull who only make the three gen strat at the beginning of the game... You don't want to play against him, and you don't want to see if the killer (in this case, you) are going to play like that or not
Recently, the match is a lot like 3V1 because one of the survivor just give up instantly... It's sad.. Insulting is not a solution... But... We can't do nothing at this moment since Knight (and skull merchant) have this kind of notoriety
This is one of the more reasonable arguments and was a breath of fresh air to read when coming back to this thread. I'll go over what I do and do not agree with.
"1. Don't care if i'm gonna loose or not, even when I'm the last survivor standing and the trap is close.. I'm gonna play at the very end for trying to survive the longer I can"
That sentence alone has earned you my respect.
"2. The Only problem with Knight, is that a lot of other player play him for camping the three gen at the beginning... And, Honestly... When I'm against one who try to chase everyone... The chase is ######### cool, I love to try to avoid "two" killer at the same times"
I won't deny this. Facing a Knight when I'm playing survivor is rare. Facing a Knight that knows how to pressure survivors without camping gens is rarer.
"You can't be mad against this kind of survivor... We can understand that... When you go against a lot of Knight/skull who only make the three gen strat at the beginning of the game... You don't want to play against him, and you don't want to see if the killer (in this case, you) are going to play like that or not"
It's not the Ada that I'm mad at. It's the entitled behaviour that players like her have. It's a tumour on the already sickly body of the DbD community. And it's only grown bigger in recent years.
It's be great if the game was better balanced and didn't allow killers to win games by camping gens. But it unfortunately isn't. And people who throw games because they don't want to deal with that only serve to make the game worse for everyone. As my game showed, even though I had no intention of camping gens and always play as aggressive as possible since that's when Knight is at his strongest, the Ada gave up anyway.
There's no clear solution to any of the problems that DbD suffers from since the devs have proven time and time again that they don't understand their own game. But that doesn't mean that accepting selfish behaviour is a good for the community. It should be rightly scorned and discouraged as it is with almost everyone other online video game playerbase.
-
@LeFreezy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3444511#Comment_3444511
The thing is, behaviour like this isn't tolerated in any other video game's community. But when it comes to DBD, there are ppl that are trying to justify ragequitting/griefing even though it's unhealthy for the game and is def NOT ok.
This is what I've been saying this entire thread.
How do I like a comment twice?
-
@Slurpin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3443906#Comment_3443906
-I'm not policing anything. Nowhere did I tell anyone what to do. If anything I was making it clear NOBODY was policing anybody in this situation, which put to question why we're discussing entitlement to begin with. Already off to a good start with exaggerations and misconstruing what I said. And you're calling my argument abysmal? Like I even made a point to double down on the 'not telling you HOW or WHO to play' and you're still saying I'm policing things? This forum man. This should be enough to settle this, but I'll continue anyway.
-Yeah, no, just because I hate one aspect of a game with a hundred other aspects doesn't mean I should not play it. This is extremely unreasonable.
-People are, believe it or not, entitled to what they do with their time. That doesn't mean what they do is FINE. But to call it entitled in the negative sense, which is what I've been calling you out on because you're 100% misusing that term, is bonkers to me. If they want to be a ######### teammate, so be it, and I'm not actually condoning it but they are absolutely entitled to play how they want. They are NOT entitled to telling you what to do, and you are NOT entitled to having them play the way you want.
-I actually agree, it's unfun. I am NOT defending giving up and DC'ing, and I think the systems put in place help punish these. What I WILL argue against is saying people aren't entitled to do better things with their time. They are. It makes them terrible players and likely need a bigger ban, but they are NOT entitled for going next.
-Gaslighting? You're turning my argument into something it isn't. This is a strawman. Using the word 'gaslight' doesn't change that. And is also incorrect.
-My fun is more important. Doesn't mean I can't be conscious of others. It also doesn't make one entitled (in the negative sense) for wanting to go next. It makes them a whiny little b-. But the use of the term 'entitled' is not only wrong, in my opinion, but makes you appear entitled.
-Your choice of killer is yours, and I will never tell you what to play and how. I will say, however, that if your gameplay is notorious for making the other side have an abysmal time, it should be expected that unfun outcomes will sometimes befall you too. I mean it does on fun killers too, but it'll be more frequent on the former. I'm not saying it's right or good, what I am saying is it is somewhat entitled to expect everyone to just happily play along with your universally disliked gameplay. I'm discussing entitlement, not what's appropriate behaviour. I've always been in favour of bans for giving up, as it is in other games.
I said it in my last post and I'll say it again here: You're NOT entitled to people playing how you want. And it isn't entitled to go next. It's #########, however, yes.
Let's break your points down:
"I'm not policing anything. Nowhere did I tell anyone what to do..."
- Except that you are. You have stated multiple times now that it's completely fine to give up against killers that you find "unfun".
- In doing so, you are setting a standard of which killers are acceptable to give up against, and which aren't. And you know full well that most people will be less inclined to play a killer if the community actively ruins their games.
- You are setting arbitrary rules that you expect others to follow and encourage retribution when your rules are broken. That is called: policing.
"Yeah, no, just because I hate one aspect of a game with a hundred other aspects doesn't mean I should not play it."
- If encountering the one aspect of the game causes you to ruin it for everyone else, then you are a liability to the community and shouldn't be apart of it anymore.
- DbD is a multiplayer game. When you play a multiplayer game you need to accept that other people want to have fun just as much as you.
- If you think that your fun is more important than everyone else's, and you simply cannot fathom why you should have to put up with something for the sake of your fellow players, then you shouldn't be playing the game. Period.
"People are, believe it or not, entitled to what they do with their time. That doesn't mean what they do is FINE. But to call it entitled in the negative sense, which is what I've been calling you out on because you're 100% misusing that term, is bonkers to me."
- People are allowed to do what they want. But they cannot ignore the consequences of their actions. Especially when it involves putting themselves above other people.
- You have continuously defended acting selfishly. Not because you care about what is best for the playerbase, but because you want the way you behave to be acceptable.
- To be "Entitled" is to believe you have been given the right to have or do something. You have made it abundantly clear that you believe your gaming experience is more important than the people you play with.
- You have also stated that you believe your inherently selfish and disruptive actions shouldn't be punished.
- You expect to act in a way that puts yourself above other people, ruins their experience, and don't believe you should be held accountable for it. That is called: being entitled.
"I actually agree, it's unfun. I am NOT defending giving up and DC'ing, and I think the systems put in place help punish these. What I WILL argue against is saying people aren't entitled to do better things with their time. They are. It makes them terrible players and likely need a bigger ban, but they are NOT entitled for going next."
- Except you are. You have stated multiple times that you believe giving up and DC'ing is justified if the individual isn't having "fun".
- You have stated that because you bought the game that you are entitled to having fun. And therefore, always entitled to give up or DC during a game in which you weren't having "fun". Once again putting your "fun" over the fun of others.
- If people refuse to stop doing something that disrupts the experiences of their fellow players then they should be expected to stop or be recognised as a selfish and disruptive player by the community.
- You then backtrack and admit that players who act like this are terrible and should be banned. Yet in the same breath defend these same players for continuing to ruin the games of others.
"Gaslighting? You're turning my argument into something it isn't. This is a strawman."
- "Gaslighting" is to attempt to make someone believe something untrue by using assumptions and false-truths. Examples of your blatant gaslighting attempts include:
1 - Inventing points that I never made and arguing against them to make yourself seem more credible.
From your first comment:
"That is the risk you are taking as killer, and you are NOT entitled for people enjoying or playing the way you want."
I never stated that I wanted people to play a certain way.
From your comment to MikaelaWantsYourBoon:
"If you cannot tolerate my mains awful gameplay loop for the other side for the tenth time today, you should uninstall."
Nowhere did I defend Knight's design. Nowhere did I say or imply that people should be forced to keep playing a game they don't find fun. My main point was always that ruining the games of other players based on how you feel is entitled and selfish.
2 - Lying about your previous points to make my counter-arguments seem unfounded.
From your reply to my rebuttal:
"I'm not policing anything. Nowhere did I tell anyone what to do."
You absolutely were policing what you thought was acceptable behaviour, as I have already proven.
From your reply to my rebuttal:
"If they want to be a ######### teammate, so be it, and I'm not actually condoning it but they are absolutely entitled to play how they want. They are NOT entitled to telling you what to do, and you are NOT entitled to having them play the way you want."
You were absolutely condoning them since the rest of your points are defending and justifying giving up during a game the moment you find it "unfun". And nowhere did I state that people should be forced to play the way I want them to, because I never said people had to play a certain way. My point is, as I keep repeating endlessly, is that people should not be allowed to ruin the game for everyone else because they weren't having "fun".
From your reply to my rebuttal
"Your choice of killer is yours, and I will never tell you what to play and how. I will say, however, that if your gameplay is notorious for making the other side have an abysmal time, it should be expected that unfun outcomes will sometimes befall you too."
Again, you are policing what killers you find acceptable to play against, which I've already gone over. Except now you're ignoring the point I made in my post where I admitted to having lots of unfair, unfun games as Knight. And yet I still played through them. You are acting like playing a game that is known for being unfun, and deliberately ruining the fun of your fellow players, are the same thing. They are not.
From your reply to my rebuttal
"Gaslighting? You're turning my argument into something it isn't. This is a strawman."
Most of your points are just you attempting to gaslight me into thinking I had made points that I hadn't. As I just proved by pointing out just some of the lies you have tried to pass off as real arguments.
I'll now address your most self-incriminating point and leave it at that because I'm tired of having to sort through so many lies.
"My fun is more important. Doesn't mean I can't be conscious of others. It also doesn't make one entitled (in the negative sense) for wanting to go next. It makes them a whiny little b-. But the use of the term 'entitled' is not only wrong, in my opinion, but makes you appear entitled."
- You just straight up admitted to saying your fun is more important. You cannot be conscious of others and think that your fun is more important than theirs.
- You try to shield your point by saying it's just "Your opinion" when you've made it perfectly clear that you believe it to be fact as shown by the constant repetition of the same point throughout your comments.
- You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're extremely entitled. Your arguments defending your stance have only proven that you care very little if at all about the people you're playing with.
In summary:
- You think it's ok to give up and ruin the games of other players because you care more about your fun than the fun of anybody else.
- You will actively judge and police other players based on how fun you find their character. Which further encourages more games to be ruined in the long-term.
- When pressed on your beliefs you will gaslight others to defend your points because there's no honest way to defend what is ultimately self-centred and disruptive behaviour in a community based around playing with other people.
- You have no idea what the correct uses of the words "Entitled" and "Gaslighting" are. Despite being the embodiment of the former and judiciously using the latter.
If you can't handle not having fun in a game as unbalanced and poorly designed as DbD, then you shouldn't be playing it.
-
@Slurpin said:
Sounds like you're feeling entitled to fun gameplay with a killer that's notorious for being one of the least fun killers to play against.
Just because there are a few God awful characters in the game doesn't mean the rest is unfun and the whole game that I've paid for should be binned. If 95% of my games are fun and the remaining 5% I prefer to opt out of, that's not a reasonable motive to abandon the whole game.
OP, you are 100% overreacting. Yeah the Ada 100% threw a tantrum and I won't actually defend them. But they didn't tell you HOW to play or WHO to play, which would be actual unwarranted entitlement. All they did was say that want to opt out of one the universally hated bunch of killers. That said maybe they do this to all killers, but you're playing The Knight, a character that has a bad reputation for a very good reason, so one can safely assume they've probably have a crap experience.
That is the risk you're taking with this killer, and you are NOT entitled to people enjoying it or playing the way you want. If they want to go next, they'll go next.
"Imagine wanting to play a game with other people and expecting them to play with you. You're so entitled!"
Where do I even start with this abysmal argument?
To start, you're policing what characters people should or shouldn't play. It doesn't matter how fun you find playing against them. They're in the game. They're playable. Deal with it. If you hate a killer so much that you would rather throw a fit and ruin the game for 4 other people, then you shouldn't be playing the game.
If you think that just because you paid for the game that you're entitled to always having fun then you are just proving my point further. It's a multiplayer game. You are expected to play with other people. If you cannot manage the incredibly simple task of not ruining the experiences of every other player in the game the moment something happens that you don't like, then you shouldn't be playing the game
People like you and the Ada, (Whose beliefs you are undoubtedly defending despite what you claim), are among the many people who will repeatedly gaslight other players into thinking that it's completely fine to give up at any time you aren't having fun.
Because when you play a multiplayer game with other people what could be more important than your fun?
If everyone who played DbD accepted the risk of not having fun the game wouldn't magically have all of its problems solved. But the more people think that their experience is more important than everyone else's, the worse the game will be everyone.
Stop promoting selfish behaviour.
-
@Nebula said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442259#Comment_3442259
While I get your point, calling people selfish for not enjoying playing against a certain killer is a bit hypocritical. I mean, you clearly play Knight for a reason, you enjoy him. Even though you admit the majority doesn’t like playing against him. Does that make you selfish for not caring about the other side having fun? No.
Everyone is inherently self-interested and are going to do things that garner them more enjoyment. Whether that’s you playing Knight or survivors wanting to play any of the other 30 killers on the roster. You can’t change people, and expecting them to do so is asinine.
You clearly haven't gotten my point since one of the first things I said was, "I do not think people should be forced to keep playing a game they find unfun". Nor at any point in my post do I state, or imply, that I think people are selfish simply because they don't enjoy going against Knight.
My point was, in no uncertain terms: People who give up or DC at the start of games are entitled because they ruin the game for everyone. And this behaviour should not be accepted.
How many times do I have to recite the same point in this thread? It does not matter how you feel. When you boot up DbD you are doing so with the intention of playing with other people. And so a certain level of accountability should be expected from each player. Like not intentionally sabotaging the game for everyone else just because you don't like the killer you're versing.
If you think that's too much to ask then either you're extremely cynical, or are defending what you think is acceptable behaviour.
-
@Saiph said:
It's not entitlement it's just the consequences of DBD's matchmaking being nonfunctional, combined with the game not letting survivors see what they're going against until it's too late and they have to DC to get out of it.
OP, have you played survivor? Specifically, have you played solo survivor, for at least ~500 hours, ideally at a decent MMR.
As survivor, half the matches nowadays feel like a waste of time that makes you literally regret playing. You can enter the match, and in 10 seconds see one of your teammates get downed then camped/tunneled. You can sit on gens for the whole match, then die to NOED and your teammates leave because they don't know how to rescue you. You can face a sweaty Nurse while your teammates cleanse dull totems for their challenge. Then, you get a series of five Skull merchants who play a tower defense, and when finally you think you got a normal game, you get slugged on the ground for the full 4 minutes because the killer did not like that you ran him for a bit too long.
So as survivor, you basically accept loss after loss, hoping the next game will finally be good. You usually know from the first 30 seconds whether it's going to be a bad game or not. This Ada probably thought it was a bad one, and AFK's to speed up the process. I won't really argue whether she should be allowed to do that or not, but I will argue that just by looking at the endscreen I can tell with reasonable confidence that she was right: this match is not going to be fun.
First, look at this matchmaking. In the same lobby, you have 3 experienced survivors, and 1 clueless Thalita who only asks to get tunneled at 5 gens. Maybe you, as killer, want to play nice, but survivors don't know that, and seeing your hatch offering, probably think they're facing yet another killer on a 4k winstreak. You also have knockout for some reason, which is a perk I've only seen be used with malicious intent, ie. excessive slugging. Then finally you're playing knight, so they can't even have fun getting chased. They'll have to hide and sit on gens all game, only to lose it anyway because the odds were flawed from the start. Maybe you are going to actually chase them, but again, they can't know that, and it would be unreasonable to assume it from their end, as their last 10 matches against knight have been long boring 3-gen scenarios.
One of your argument is "You should not queue if you don't like certain killers", but there are two problems with this argument. The first one: there are now 32 killers in this game, at this point I doubt you can find someone who doesn't hate at least one of them, be it for balance reasons (eg. Nurse/Blight/Spirit too strong), uninteresting gameplay (Knight/SM/antiloop killers) or other person-specific reasons (eg. Plague vomit effects, Dredge dark screen). You as a killer don't have to face this dilemna, since you're playing against only 1 type of survivor, and while maps/perks still play a major role, it's not like playing 32 different games at the same time.
The 2nd argument is that, you're telling people to leave and play something else, but that's already what most people actually do. Judging by Steam charts, the majority of players only come to play at events for a few weeks, then immediatly leave. In the past, the game had a much better player retention. The players you are seeing DC in the game are a minority, the majority are actually following your advice.
TL;DR: I understand your point, but for fairness, you can't call it "entitlement" as the killer role isn't facing the same miserable design decisions as the (solo) survivor role constantly does. Imagine if you, as killer, were facing full P100 SWFs sending you to MacMillan, say ~75% of the time, and you cannot dodge. Would you play these matches?
I feel like this entire post as turned into me endlessly repeating myself. So here I go again.
It is absolutely entitlement that drives players to giving up or DC'ing at the start of a match. It has nothing to do with matchmaking. Although I'd hesitate to call the system that DbD uses put players together "matchmaking". It's more like a slot machine with thousands of potential combinations where getting a balanced game is winning the jackpot.
People who've had a decent amount of time with DbD, like the Ada in my game, should know by now that they will face maps, or killers, or builds that they don't like. Keyword here is "like". It has little to do with balance contrary to the excuses that many will make. And whenever they have to deal with something they don't "like" they will throw a tantrum and make it everyone else's problem.
There's no excuse for this. I know full well that when I play solo que survivor I am probably going to have some really crap games. And when those games happen, guess what? I keep playing through them. I don't make things worse for everyone else simply because I'm not having fun. That's it. End of story. Stop trying to justify the normalization of selfish behaviour as the game's fault. It is 100% the player's fault for continuing to play a game that they don't enjoy, and ruining the experience of other players as a result.
And while you're at it, stop lying about MMR. "Decent MMR", or any type of MMR for that matter, does not exist. I've already made a post with a link to a video detailing how the MMR system really works. And I'm tired of people who keep saying that, "You wouldn't understand because you don't play at the same MMR as me".
EVERYONE PLAYS AT THE SAME MMR.
MMR has only 2 brackets: One for new players, and one for everyone else. There's no attempt to match people together who are similar MMR because the system prioritizes getting into matches quickly instead of creating fair matches.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3443859#Comment_3443859
iri banner is worthless man. I rather use his iri exposed add-on and 3 gen. call to arm is feels good add-on. Its not really needed but it is decent for drawing trails. The problem is that if you use call to arms, then you need to use dried meat for Assassin to hit people because his base-kit cannot hit anyone that is running forward. As this post explains, if you put a guard directly on top of the survivor, the guard statistically cannot detect you if you run forward in any direction because radius is too small without map of the realm. You have a problem where you need 3 add-on's but can only select two of them.
I still think Knight guards should gain 1-5% increase movement speed based off length of patrol path. the fact you need dried horsemeat to make 1/3 of your guard(Assassin) relevant for hits is silly. What is worse is that Assassin hitting a survivor is not really reliable either. Lots of investment for inconsistent reward.
The banner is far from worthless. The ability to block windows isn't too useful most of the time. But being able to stop survivors from leaving through the gates is a free kill if you're close enough. The effect even lasts long enough to place down a 2nd guard before the survivor can escape. So not even bodyblocking can save them!
The Knight's Contract is by far Knight's most problematic add-on and just encourages you to face-camp people to death. It needs to be re-worked.
Whereas Call to Arms is amazing and makes Knight better at everything he does. It isn't a "feel good" add-on. It's a straight upgrade that massively boosts his power. And is especially useful on large maps where Knight often struggles.
I don't know what you're talking about with the guards. Both Carnifex & the Assassin can catch people if you create a max-length patrol path and the survivor runs in a straight line. Horsemeat helps definitely, but you can still land hits without it. Making all guards 5% faster would be such a massively over-tuned buff and would easily make Knight one of the most oppressive killers in the game. Most of the value from his guards isn't being able to land hits. Isn't zoning survivors out and herding them where you want them to go.
I'm telling you this as one of the most experienced Knight mains, (Not that there's many of those), that you need to spend more time playing him before you can make judgements about him.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
I use map of of the realm+dried horse meat every match on him. it sucks that only assassin can counter hold-w with dried horse meat. I think carnifex should also be able to counter hold-w and get hits. Map of the realm is pretty essential for him. Knight is almost unplayable in my opinion without the map.
You can definitely play him without the map if you use Iridescent Banner + Call to Arms for an end-game build. And focus on using your guards for zoning rather than getting into chases. But there's no denying that most of Knight's add-ons are garbage.
-
I agree for the most part. I think that halving the effects of Dried Horsemeat, Call to Arms, and Map of the Realm, and then making them all base-kit would be better than just having MotR base-kit. Since Knight currently has no reason to run any add-ons besides those 3.
Actually, he could do with a full add-on pass as well. Whoever thought that having two add-ons that make your guards inflict Mangled and Haemorrhage separately, rather than inflicting both as a single add-on, needs to have their frontal lobe checked.
-
@ACleverName4Me said:
I'm talking about a full blown Freddy level rework. This...pathetic excuse for a killer needs a rework to actually be FUN. Even after her update... EVERY SINGLE SKULL MERCHANT I have faced just continues to drone drop on gens. The update to where she doesn't get the drone back as fast after it gets disabled is PATHETICALLY bad. She always has one extra drone for her gens she doesn't want to leave.
This killer is the worst thing added to the game when it comes to fun because she doesn't loop, she stays in one area and bores you to death. Anyone who dcs as soon as they see her drone or sacrifices themselves on first hook I don't blame them because she is annoying. No one wants a 15 minute last gen stand off!!! I will never buy her with shards or cells until I see her get an overhaul.
Waste of a chapter. Waste of a rift. Also her base on Sheltered Woods in an eye sore.
The amount of effort required to make Skull Merchant a good killer would be on par with creating a new killer altogether. So the devs are highly unlikely to ever fix her.
-
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442100#Comment_3442100
The problem is if it's considered acceptable for someone to give up if they see something they don't like then most games will have at least one person who gives up.
Don't like the killer? Don't like the map? Don't like a player's build? Just give up it's okay. You're not having fun so you shouldn't be expected to have to play.
See the issue?
Exactly!
This attitude only serves as an excuse to give up the moment something "unfun" happens. It's very unhealthy for the playerbase and shouldn't be encouraged or justified.
-
@SMitchell8 said:
I don't understand the hate for Knight. The guards pop up next to you at a moments notice, that's exciting surely? You have to then out run a guard and try to avoid being pincered by the knight himself, so that requires being fleet flooted and skilful.
I main Knight and ive watched video's of playing against them and I genuinely can't see why people get so ar5y about him. Yeah 3 gen drags on a bit, but SM is way worse for holding 3 gens.
Ditto. Knight is one of the few killers that really tests your map knowledge and positioning. Versing him is always fun for me!
-
@NerfedFreddy said:
Can't blame Ada and that what we all do from time to time. Soloq needs and balance on killer side have been ignored for years and that's inevitable consequences of it. That's why now we have 1000 winstreak Blight.
"Should BHVR add modding?"
Speak for yourself!
The last time I DC'ed from a game was back when Knight first released and they hadn't fixed his power getting permanently broken at random.
And the last time I gave up was when I was first learning the game before any of the maps were re-worked.
And quite frankly, it seems like the majority of people who give up or DC in my games are just looking for an excuse. They don't really care about the balance of the game or solo que. They're just easily upset and care more about their personal fun than the fun of their fellow players.
-
@Nazzzak said:
There's no point getting upset about it. You can't control how others behave. There are players who dodge in lobby when they see apparent swfs with toolboxes or high prestige players. Survivors don't have the option to killer shop so it's not unusual for this to happen in games. I play solo and see people go afk or DC when they see who the killer is.
You're right, I can't control how others behave. But I can call them out on their selfish, childish, disrespectful behaviour. And judge them for it. And when enough people judge you for how you behave either you stop caring about what others think, or you change.
I'm not hoping for this Ada to read this post, have an epiphany, and vow to never give up again. But letting players like this know that how they act isn't ok is the first step to stopping it. However unlikely stopping people from giving up really is.
-
@dollidahlia said:
A fun topic, I’m burned out of dbd right now, even though I want to play it, everytime I’m on the menu I get bored.
how long does it take for you to get over the burnout of games before you decide to play it again?
personally for me it might take me half a year to a whole year
It usually depends on what the latest content update was.
When Skull Merchant dropped I tested out her perks and reluctantly completed the rift challenges so I could prestige my Knight. Then I stopped playing the game until Nic Cage was announced.
I'll probably mess around with the Singularity a lot before stopping again since, unlike SM, he's actually well designed.
-
@Tsulan said:
No one gonna mention the loadout of the survivors, that was clearly aimed at a gen rush? But since its against a Knight, the didn´t feel like it, so they just gave up.
In other words, they were prepared for a short and unfun match for the killer, but couldn´t stand the idea of a unfun match for themselves.
Mikaela was the only survivor with a gen-rush loadout. But they were also the other survivor who didn't like playing against Knight. And something tells me that if the Ada hadn't given up at the start of the game, Mikaela would have should I start to win.
I'm fine if people run load-outs designed to rush gens since Knight is really good at punishing survivors who group up. But I can see the hypocrisy you're pointing out. I don't think many killer players would enjoy it if they kept finding people with green toolboxes with BNPs.
-
@NerfDHalready said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442154#Comment_3442154
it's just insane how bhvr could make a killer a knight main can look down upon. hopefully we never get another knight or sm ever again.
Perfectly understandable.
-
@Jangles said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442135#Comment_3442135
I'll be honest, I dont love going against it. I just don't enjoy the whole run in a straight line, bait the loop for power then move to the next one. I don't love going against artist for the same reason. Like I'll have a grumble about it when I load in but I wont DC. Personally I like to play the loop with the killer and the challenge is in the mind games.
I also think content creators haven't helped with this, People get the mentality that every knight game is going to be a 45 minute wade through the trenches trying to break a 3 gen that was held from the start of the game. Doesn't excuses ruining the game for 4 other people though.
Lol.
I'm happy to report that I win most of my Knight games by aggressively pressuring survivors instead of holding a 3-gen and waiting for them to die of old age.
I'm a Knight main after all. Not a Skull Merchant main.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
OP, since you have the same Steam name as the person who talked in the VHS forums about how people didn't want to learn VHS, they were so lazy and entitled, they were just slackers, etc I'm curious if that was you?
If that was you I have to admit I'm having a hard time taking this seriously as you would have had a past history of really poor takes on games and a definite lack of empathy. Once is a comment but two exact same items come across as a pattern (If that wasn't you please ignore the first two paragraphs as they wouldn't be applicable).
While I do find what Ada did to be abhorrent and think the Ada should have stayed so as not to cause problems for her teammates what @Pulsar said was true in that it sucked for both of you. While you're totally within your rights to expect that people will play the full match and Ada's teammate were counting on her it sucks to be put into a situation that's not fun. I do agree that the Ada should stick to Killer or single player games if they can't stay for their team but rather than uninstalling they should, in my opinion, voice their opinion to the devs. Fortunately BHVR does listen to its players as a whole which is probably why it is still around despite its flaws while so many other asymms didn't do so and failed. It still sucked that it happened and hopefully you won't get too many more matches like that.
Yep. That was me.
I could have worded that post better. As it wasn't supposed to be directed at everyone who was struggling to learn the game. Just specifically the people who played the game for a few hours, got stomped on, and left a rambling post on the forums demanding the game be changed because they refused to even try to learn it. Which there was an abundance of when the game released on steam. So I'll take accountability for that.
I feel like you're being perhaps a bit too judgemental though. "You would have a past history of really poor takes on games and a definite lack of empathy..." You really going to look at a forum post I made about people bitching about video game balance and make a character judgement of me because of that?
I only hope you do the same for everyone you argue with and aren't making exceptions when it suits you...
Regardless, DbD isn't alive right now because BHVR listens to players, (Which they do rather inconsistently at best), it's alive because it had a promising and unique concept with it first came out and then got various popular horror licenses to maintain it's spotlight. Even though the balance of the game has technically gotten better over the years, it has also gotten very stagnant. And the content cycle is so short that good chapters are less common than the bad ones.
I've had so many people ruin my games because they don't like Knight, and at this point it's happened so much I'm basically used to it, but that doesn't meant that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442132#Comment_3442132
It's funny, old dbd was way more unbalanced but people actually played the game out. Now finding players who actually try to play through challenging games is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Yeah. It's as if back when the game was less balanced people didn't take it as seriously and had more fun as a result.
But now it seems like people have to actively work to find the fun in their games.
-
@KolbyKolbyKolby said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442125#Comment_3442125
I'm not gonna read the whole post because it's an entire disseration of you whining.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442118#Comment_3442118
I agree entirely. Some sort of concede option would be a decent addition. Sometimes the survivors don't want to play against a particularly egregious build, and I'll be damned if any killer wants to spend 10 minutes looking for one of two default Fengs that are doing their best to sink into the floor. It's simply not a game for being that competitive, and respecting the time you spend with it should be important. Video games are meant to be fun, and an asymmetrical game has a lot of opportunity to be unfun. Finding ways to ensure players keep having fun should be one of the highest design philosophies.
So do you often make abrasive, profoundly incorrect comments on posts you don't read or am I the exception to the rule?
-
@Jangles said:
To be fair you're absolutely cracked on knight. I play against you alot on OCE. Yeah that sucks but.
Thanks!
I think a big part of why people don't like going against Knight is that he's such a rare killer to come across that most people don't have enough experience against him to know how to counter him.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442116#Comment_3442116
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442112#Comment_3442112
Is he? Man... Can we play sometime? Any cracked killer is a blessing in my eyes, and I love facing them to improve.
Sure! Here's a link to my steam profile if you want to friend me:
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442110#Comment_3442110
Because when DBD works, it's really fun and there's nothing like it.
Unfortunately, BHVR insists on making ONE good Killer a year.
I guess the 3-month content cycle is the biggest culprit here.
I know that as much as I enjoy Knight as he is now, I'd enjoy him much more if he wasn't blatantly unfinished.
-
@KolbyKolbyKolby said:
You can't force players to stay in matches they don't find fun. Whether that is based on a specific killer or playstyle, it doesn't matter.
No amount of complaining or calling people entitled will change this fact, and it applies equally to every role. You want a solution? Let people block specific killers, even if it increases their lobby time. Or disable the DC penalty when the bots replace them
Suggesting someone not play an entire game because 1 out of a roster of 32 is unfun for them, or in some cases causes actual sickness is a little ridiculous.
Some matches are going to be a waste of time and it's honeslty on the devs to find ways to solve that rather than expecting people to commit to the 1 out of every 20 matches when it's going to be a miserable time.
Someone didn't read the full post. One of the first things I say is "I do not think people should be forced to keep playing a game they find unfun". So most of your comment is moot.
And this part: "Suggesting someone not play an entire game because 1 out of a roster of 32 is unfun for them, or in some cases causes actual sickness is a little ridiculous" Is just silly.
Knight is part of the game. When you play survivor you have a chance to be put against Knight. You don't like him? Then either stop playing the game or accept that you'll go against a Knight everyone once in a while. He's not even a popular killer! I know rarely see him when I play survivor.
It's not unreasonable to expect people to deal with poor game design when you play a match of DbD. But it is very unreasonable to expect others to accept you ruining their game because they don't like the character you're playing as.
Like I said, I don't think you should be forced to keep playing the game if you don't want to, but that doesn't mean that selfishly giving up should be accepted when it's not just your game that's being ruined.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442091#Comment_3442091
The Ada didn't do anything bannable, though. She gave up the moment she saw the Knight, yes, but she didn't stall the game or hindered the progress of the match towards its conclusion.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3442094#Comment_3442094
Yes you can. With the new system in place its enough to just click on the Thumbs up/thumbs down icon and report them. This generates a ticket on BHVRs side and they knew who all the players are. If you want to give additional info about a match afterwards via the website, just state that it was your last match and that you reported it ingame. Of course, in this case it wouldn't do anything, as the Ada didn't commit a bannable action.
I didn't know you could still report people with anonymous mode on. Thanks for telling me!
-
@Pulsar said:
I'm probably, deservedly, in the minority.
However, I think I'm at the point in my Killer career where I just empathize with Survivors. My first thought wasn't, "How dare she" it was "That sucks for both of you, I wish BHVR would design Killers that aren't so miserable to play against that people would rather not play DBD."
It's difficult for me to empathise with someone who should know better by now. If they were a new player and still discovering things about the game then I can't blame them for continuing to play since they don't understand everything yet.
But c'mon! This dude was P100. Why is he even still playing if he finds parts of the game so miserable that he would rather stop playing altogether, but will still que up for further matches?
-
@appleas said:
Hope you reported the Ada. They deserve it.
You can't report players who have anonymous mode enabled. Not that it would have done much. Devs rarely give out bans based on reports anyway.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I'd agree about tunnelling being effective, but not camping. Camping ignores 3 survivors and leaves them free to sit on gens. When the additional 10 secs got added to the gens, I'd say this benefited camping as even if the camped person held on to the end, you wouldnt get as much gen progress done before they were sacrificed (to add, I don't get alot of campers in my games but I keep stats and it looks like most camping games I'm in end with a 2k).
We don't yet know how quick the meter fills, and did they say it's one time use only? I can't remember. But either way, being able to jump from the hook potentially buys the team some time. If it ends up being pointless against most of the killer roster, then they're more likely to probably change things around Endurance so survivors aren't just downed a second later and put on hook.
The whole point of camping is to trade the repair progress of the other 3 survivors for getting 1 of them out of the game. Proxy camping still exists and is completely unhindered by the anti-camp mechanic. And since proxy camping is the most effective way to camp, this mechanic does absolutely nothing at best. At worst, the hooked survivor can unhook themselves in the killer's face early and die faster by being rehooked.
So camping is ultimately made stronger by this mechanic. Not weaker.
-
@CamperSluggerVillain said:
if they wanna stop us from camping it's fine by i'm just gonna slug everyone and never hook now, hooking survivors was already meh before
No? Pain Resonance, No Way Out and BBQ&Chilli are some of the strongest killer perks in the game right now and all of them require you to get hooks. Slugging can be useful but doing it constantly is asking to be out-pressured over time if you aren't playing Condemn-only Sadako.
-
@ExcelSword said:
Even if Killers can rehook survivors fairly quickly, it still prevents chainsaw killers from trading hooks. We also don't know if we can choose when to unhook ourselves, or if it is automatic. If we can choose, then you can just wait 59 seconds to unhook yourself and that is a net buff.
Leatherface will not be able to get more than 1 survivor at a time if this is implemented and you play correctly, currently 1 survivor is the minimum when a rescue is being done. Trying to argue that this is actually a buff to face-camping is such a massive reach.
"Even if killers can rehook survivors fairly quickly, it still prevents chainsaw killers from trading hook..."
Not if they proxy camp. Which this mechanic does nothing to counter.
"Leatherface will not be able to get more than 1 survivor at a time if this is implemented and you play correctly, currently 1 survivor is the minimum when a rescue is being done. Trying to argue that this is actually a buff to face-camping is such a massive reach."
The whole point of camping a survivor on a hook is to trade the gen repairs that the other survivors are doing in exchange for getting a survivor out of the game. If someone is dumb enough to try and save someone from a face-camping Bubba then the game is already over. The correct play remains the same: do gens. Which the addition of this mechanic does not change since, again, proxy camping exists.
The only thing this mechanic changes is now the survivor on the hook can unhook themselves and get re-hooked and die faster if the killer is facecamping. Which is a buff to camping.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
I think the issue here is not so much this measure, but the fact that Endurance does very little against the actual problematic campers.
If the survivor was just straight-up immune to any and all hits immediately after an unhook, plus the speed boost, at the very least the basement becomes escapable.
That sounds extremely abusable. There shouldn't be a way for the survivors to become straight-up immune to getting hit. A mechanic like that would just be yet another band-aid on the problems inherit within the core design of the game.
If camping and tunnelling is to be addressed, it is the core design of the game that needs to change. Anything else will be superfluous at best and counter-productive at worst.
-
I've bumped into this cheesy combo before. Fortunately, I was playing Knight at the time. And he hard counters builds like this with just 5 easy steps!
- Carry the downed survivor until you hear them groan 6 times.
- Cycle through your guards until you have the Assassin selected, then create a max-length-patrol-path around you.
- Pick up and immediately drop the survivor to cause them to wiggle free and watch as your guard downs them within the next 5 seconds.
- Repeat steps 1-3 as necessary until you reach the basement.
- Prepare your choice of scrambled eggs, hot chips or other snack for the inevitable salt you'll receive in the end-game chat.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
Does it hurt?
Nope. But the people who keep DC'ing against me on first down are probably hurt.
-
@1ettuce said:
Idk if I have anything to ask rly. Just congrats! Knight really is p fun once u get to know him :D
I agree! People are too harsh on him and most don't even know how to play him properly.
-
@Spirit_IsTheBest said:
I’m only p78 on Spirit. I got ways to go, but my question is now that you’ve p100 Knight do you plan to p100 anyone else?
Probably not. It took over several months to P100 Knight. Unless a new killer comes out that I really really like, I won't it again.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
What addons would you suggest for the Knight?
Personally, I typically use Cold Steel Manacles with Lightweight Grieves in conjunctions with Nemesis and Game Afoot to make most pallets really unsafe, even structures like shack can be easy to handled with the stacked movement speed...
But there is one slight issue, Lightweight Grieves, from my experience, can be hard to get my hands on, and Im also a bit concerned that focusing too much on speed might shaft my performance later down the line.
His best add-ons are Dried Horsemeat, Call to Arms, and Map of the Realm. The best combination for good performance on most maps is Call to Arms + Map of the Realm. But any combination of the three can work if you play to their strengths.
Dried Horsemeat makes all of your guards hunt for 4 extra seconds and is great for the Assassin since he covers more ground with his extra speed.
Call to Arms allows you to place your guards an extra 10 meters away and create patrol paths 25% faster. And is great for the Jailer as it allows his already massive detection radius to cover even more ground.
Map of the Realm increases the detection radius of all of your guards by 4 meters and is especially good for the Carnifex. As the extra detection range compliments his long hunt time. Allowing him to pressure survivors the most out of any guard.
Lightweight Greeves is definitely better than most of Knight's add-ons, but getting value out of it is inconsistent. Since you have to be in a position to summon the Jailer, have him do something useful like guard an area or zone a survivor, and be close enough to a survivor that the extra speed helps you land a hit.