StarLost
StarLost
About
- Username
- StarLost
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@OneGoodBoyDemo said:
I swear on the entity that if i fall into the Dead Dawg Saloon again i will freak out. It is always Dead dawg five times in a row. Other maps i also can't stand are midwich and the swamps.
Are always the same, BHVR do something.
Ah, I understand your thread now.
For me, I see a ton of:
Swamp
Farm
Gideon
Autohaven
@Aneurysm said:
I'm also a dead dawg main. I don't hate the map but I don't want to go there three times in a row either.
I got Swamp five times in a row last week.
-
@DrDeepwound said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2985115#Comment_2985115
"there's no way to prevent a slug camper from just bopping the person back down the second you heal them."
Soul Guard, but not many run it usually only swf teams, I do on my Nancy sometimes
Yeah, I don't think I've seen a Soul Guard in ages - it's one of those annoying perks that, AFAIK, require a real money purchase as it comes from a licensed survivor.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2985088#Comment_2985088
At least when you’re slugged you get to still crawl around and maybe even pick yourself up with a related perk. If anything that seems more engaging than being on a hook.
Also I’m not sure what I’m missing but why would slugging get you less pips than being on a hook as a survivor?
P.S. Pips are dumb, I personally couldn’t care less about them.
That 1m BP is a huge deal, especially for those of us who can't play a ton.
Here's the thing about Knockout slugging.
- A lot of your Altruism stat comes from safe unhooks.
- You can always see the person on the hook, unless you are Blind.
- Yes, Unbreakable is a good-ish counter, but the whole point of Knockout slugging is that you'll camp the area where the slug is, so that even if the other team try to find them, you can probably slug them too.
- You can unhook with BT, but there's no way to prevent a slug camper from just bopping the person back down the second you heal them.
-
@DrDeepwound said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2984861#Comment_2984861
Apply that same logic to SWF teams with comms and then we can talk.
The Knockout loadout is crap versus SWFs, but people running it will typically lobby shop for groups that look like they are solo.
@dugman said:
There’s nothing wrong with slugging.
Eh...
In theory, sure.
In practice, when you're dealing with someone who literally never hooks and just slugs everyone with Knockout - yeah, that's a problem, it's basically a 'lol, enjoy depipping' build.
-
@OneGoodBoyDemo said:
I swear on the entity that if i fall into the Dead Dawg Saloon again i will freak out. It is always Dead dawg five times in a row. Other maps i also can't stand are midwich and the swamps.
Are always the same, BHVR do something.
Against me? I see a lot of killers sending themselves to Midwich and Haddonfield, and a lot of survivors sending themselves to The Game, Farm, Eyrie and Badham. Occasionally Ormond.
I don't mind DDS - it's actually a pretty even map against non-potato survivors.
If I'm playing an offering, it's generally connected to a challenge. The Game, for example, let's me get the 'break pallets' done pretty fast.
-
@Plsfix369 said:
Is it more effective to camp near exit gates and have Remember me, or is it better to equip NWO and just go slugging? I use Blood Warden, NOED, and Agitation.
I've been tweaking my endgame builds with Trapper and have started to focus on camping near the exit gates, and I was thinking of redoing my gate opening defense.
I have checked for any possible synergies, and now I'm down to my last and most crucial perk to finish my build. Remember me or NWO.
The other perks I've tried to use with Trapper were:
Insidious and NOED by the exit gates, which of course was useless but still a good meme build.
Totem defense (Hag Style), with Thrill of the Hunt and NOED, was too high-risk since survivors literally cleanse anything they see glowing.
Starstruck camping was surprisingly effective when exchanging hooks, as long as everyone is close by, but the cooldown was a problem.
Remember Me is crap.
NWO is very decent, but a full 'endgame' build...you're putting all your eggs into one very risky basket, especially on a killer as immobile as Trapper.
Blood Warden is...hilarious, but also pretty crap. Savvy survivors will anticipate it and hold off on opening the gates once NWO is cleared.
Agitation is a decent perk, but needs to be paired with Starstruck or SH perks to be worth the slot.
I'd prefer to go with a more balanced loadout, working around your theme.
NOED
NWO
Agitation
Pain Resonance
-
@Chocolate_Cosmos said:
New DLC coming soon. I wonder how many people are going to buy it or how many people are at least excited.
Are you looking forward to the new chapter? What are your thoughts?
I'm taking a bit of a break right now, but I'll come back and play it during the anniversary event.
-
@ThatOneDemoPlayer said:
That's not even the strongest thing a Nurse could run
Knockout is low-key broken in solo queue, and allows killers to troll hard. It's rough on a Nurse, but pray you never get it on a Ghosty or a Hag - you'll never find the slug.
-
@kaneyboy said:
Everyone moans about noed. DH etc do you all really want a boring game where everyone’s perks are weaker??
No, we want a game where the delta between 'weak' perks and 'strong' perks is smaller.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982593#Comment_2982593
But "constantly" is subjective. Would you consider someone blinding a killer after every pallet "constantly"?
The only issue I see here is the annoying sound because blinding is just what flashlights do as intended.
I think he means 'frequently'. As in 'I see a hell of a lot of people doing this'.
It's not just the clicking. It's the rapid strobing. This sets up the perfect storm to mess with photosensitive players - strobing+noxious stimuli.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/AB9DMZI7FPXE/inked20220604095505-1-li.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/GXHQHSGFR464/ianmalcolm.gif
A Basement Blight was really unexpected.
Are we seeing the next step in evolution?
Had a basement Demogorgon the other day that jumpscared me so badly that I didn't need my morning coffee.
Also - people should be more scared of the basement Ghostface. It's...effective.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982584#Comment_2982584
Idk making things dark for the survivors could really mess up a lot of high mmr players. I can imagine just constantly running into objects because you can't see
We'll see. I know that for me, I have a pretty good feel for most maps that aren't RPD or the new Haddonfield buildings and I'm a terrible survivor. I don't think the darkness is going to mess me up all that much. Midwich...that map is already way too dark in places.
-
@_AdamFrancis_ said:
I won't waste your time xD, if I end up spelling something wrong just know it's because I'm half asleep and fighting to keep my eyes open lol.
Extreme Tunneling when it is unnecessary:
Honestly if someone wants to be a butt, nothing will change that. So maybe a penalty could help with something like this? Maybe like, lose -70 bps for extreme tunneling a survivor? Idk, I don't think punishing people for playing how they want is a good idea.
Optimization: Honestly, at this point, just add a performance mode. I would be perfectly fine with having Nintendo Switch graphics if it meant I could actually run 60 fps.
99ing Gates: This take might be controversial, but gates should regress and stop at around 75%. I would like if It could atleast be tested, because IMHO, 99ed gates are uncounterable in endgame and need to be nerfed.
Mediocre maps/ map offerings. Map Offering just need to be removed. You should not be able to equip something like BL and use a map Offering to get guaranteed value out of it.
Not to mention how maps like Swamp, Eyrie are unfun to play on for both sides.
To combat this, I propose a less RNG based tile system, composing bigger maps as having more spread tiles. That way, having a bigger map makes the game a little more killer sided, which is good.
Well that's it for now ( I have to sleep xD )
Hmm.
Yes, tunneling is annoying, but unless it's straight up tunneling off hook (see: camping) then it's not the killer's responsibility to spread out the damage, it's the responsibility of your team to defend you and your own responsibility to be extra careful.
Optimization...eh. Console: yes. PC: it's not amazing, but I can get a silky smooth 60fps at 4k, on my elderly 1080ti if I tweak a few settings down.
Gates - yes, the endgame should matter more for survivors, but 99ing the gates is a non-issue. Gates should just take longer to open, and sitting in the exit gate area should be dangerous for survivors.
Map offerings - yes. Absolutely. But it's not so much the offerings that are the problem - it's more that they illuminate how ridiculously one sided some maps are.
Eyrie and Swamp are great maps when I'm on survivor. Both are insanely safe maps with ridiculously busted main structures. But the elephant in the room is (and likely will be going forward) the Badham maps, which are pretty close to old Haddonfield in terms of being ridiculous for the killer, Cowshed and The Game.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982577#Comment_2982577
Using an item isnt trolling, as annoying as one might be. You can make the point of it being bad for people with disabilities, which I agree if it's a macro and that could def be toned down to so it is more friendly for disabled people.
And when you start a comment with "you survivors" implying that I am a survivor only player, and that I'm the one using macros because I disagreed with them, yes it is a "you vs us" thread.
It's...textbook trolling/griefing - you are using a game mechanic to annoy or frustrate another player in a manner that they can't do anything about. There is no other purpose to using a flashlight macro.
Again - a bit of charity here, this does not seem like an EPL speaker.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
Can we balance it though? We wouldn't want survivors to not be able to see 2 feet in front of them would we?
Mm...I'm a bit worried about this being one of those 'stomps newbies flat and barely effects high MMR' mechanics. It's a cool idea, but I can only imagine this one on RPD or Midwich from the survivor's POV.
-
@Marigoria said:
TIL that hacking is a survivor only problem.
"The_best_killer_main"... but complaining about flashlights.... ok
He's not saying that they are OP, he's saying...if I'm understanding right (my guess is that he's an ESL speaker) that clicky macros are insanely annoying and should have been removed years ago.
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982566#Comment_2982566
"you survivors", just another US vs Them thread, move along, nothing original or constructive to read here.
Is it?
Survivors...are the exclusive users of flashlights. And spamming that obnoxious strobe/clicking is definitely trolling.
-
@The_best_killer_main said:
OK I'm sure if you have read any of my other discussions you see that I talk about trolling problems in games caused by survivors such as hacking or unfair perks . But the one of the most ANNOYING topics I can talk about is flashlights . I man seriously you survivors are the worst with flashlights. sometimes blinding killers multiple times at ONCE , or that ANNOYING clicking sound . We get it you have a flashlight TRUST ME WE KNOW . so please stop with the flashlight trolling is not funny , use the flashlight once when needed or to help you teammate out of being hooked , but thats it .do not stand at the exit Gate and flash us constantly .. or don't get in a gang and point your flashlights all at once .it dose not make you a better survivor . And it dose make us want to chase you . In fact if I get constantly clicked at by a survivor I will ignore that survivor the whole game . So if your doing it to get chased and to "supposedly" try to get better . It dose not work . You are a trolling and you know it .
Yeah, I hate...wait, 'flashers' is already taken. Flickers?
The strobing plus the noxious clicking gives me a literal headache, and my photosensitivity issues are minor.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982267#Comment_2982267
Oh well. I guess there is no discrimination in modern western countries anymore as it is illegal and Mooks can’t name discriminated people directly (as they don’t really want to use their own name here for example).
i guess we just solved discrimination for the modern west! Well done everybody involved!
(just as a hint, the right for adoption for same-sex couples as well as marriage is actually something legalized in most of these so called modern western countries, especially when we are only counting the EU and USA, I am not even that well informed about this topic but my example if you asked for a specific country would have been Poland which you then would probably argue it doesn’t count as a modern western country)
but well, bye, I gotta go as well. Gonna conquest the world as it’s obviously the only way to make the world less destructive for lgbtq+ people.
/eyeroll.
Well done, you beat the absolute pants off that strawman!
In all seriousness though, good speaking with all of you. We may disagree about certain things, but at the end of the day, we're all just human nerds enjoying a videogame :). Always happy to have a civil back and forth.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982254#Comment_2982254
- What does my opinion on how a non-destructive world for LGBT folks looks like have to do with any of this? And conquest? Really?
- It wasn’t better. I believe you when you say you think it was better, but you have made it very clear you are not really including trans people in this at all. And still even for LGB people it wasn’t better overall. See the next point:
- ‚Discrimination is illegal‘ doesn’t really mean that it’s not happening or that you can successfully sue for it. Discrimination takes place everywhere against LGBTQ+ people all the time. It also takes place against women, different ethnicities, religions etc. I really envy you if you think it doesn’t happen or isn’t a problem. But I do believe that you actually think it is because you somehow live in sich a perfect bubble.
- right of adoption of children for LGB people, it’s really not in all modern western countries allowed, is it?
Okay, last one from me.
- If you assert that the world is destructive for LGBT folks, then surely you must be able to imagine the converse? I said 'conquest', because you said 'world', and attempting to change the world externally - particularly the countries mentioned earlier in this thread - is not something that I can imagine being possible without conquest. It's a thought experiment - useful both for understanding how other people think, and how you think.
- Yes, I'm excluding the 'T', because it's not something that either of us can speak authoritatively on (and as this thread demonstrates, is incredibly contentious even amongst progressives). We'd basically both be speaking from our own subjective understandings of this issue, which would be completely pointless.
- Yeah...no. This is the point where you're asserting facts rather than opinions, which means that this is the point where I have to ask for specific examples (or better yet, sources). Let's stick to LGB folks - can you give me three examples of specific cases where people were discriminated against, in the modern west, because of these criteria - that wasn't later either overturned by a superior court or is pending litigation before a superior court?
- Title IX is pretty comprehensive about any sort of racial or gendered discrimination.
- Yes, there will always be people who break the law. All you can do is make things illegal - you can't make them more illegal, and thus this is the extent of what can (and probably should) be done from a governmental standpoint.
- Adoption rights...as far as I know, there is no absolute right for anyone to adopt - it's almost always at the discretion of whatever agency you are applying with, and economic/marriage status is a much bigger determiner than anything else. The adoption/fostering system is badly in need of an overhaul, but that is neither here nor there.
- That said, adoption is one that is currently being actively litigated, and in every case I've found, federal courts are siding with same sex parents. This is an issue that only the supreme courts of either state or country can really handle, because it's an issue with very little modern legal precedent for even traditional couples (adoption is ridiculously complicated and ridiculously broken for everyone, so claiming any sort of specific discrimination doesn't seem possible here).
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982146#Comment_2982146
I'm not even sure what you mean by the first sentence. I just asked a simple question, because BHVR being in support of the LGBTQ+ community isn't forcing anyone to accept gay people. I am sure (as it is evident) there are plenty of people who play DBD and still have an issue with LGBTQ+ people.
Also, just because people have suggestions after the announcement doesn't mean they are hyper-focusing on only identity. The announcement was about their (BHVR) stance on showing/allowing/including more diversity etc etc. So, would it not make sense for someone to suggest content that is related to that announcement? I don't see the issue with that. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with what BHVR does, that has been made clear.
Nobody is asking to "normalize" anything. If you think this is an attempt to do that, you are way off. A game including a LGBTQ+ character isn't going to change how uneducated and bigoted someone might be.
I feel like at this point BHVR has made it very clear that if they want to make a fuss about it, they will. They have every right to do that as a company. That isn't saying YOU should do that as well or you should feel that way as well.
I don't think so. Unless you think that disagreeing with a specific item or act of activism means that you are automatically considered bigoted against LGBTQ+ folks, I'm not sure if you can get from one to the other here. Again - disagreeing with them making a song and dance about a gay character doesn't mean you have an issue with LGBTQ+ folks.
Yes, I think they are. I'm not talking about suggestions here, I'm talking about the folks that said that 'making David gay is queer erasure because he doesn't look gay enough' and the like. If that thread is still up, you can probably find it using those exact terms.
Uh...yes, it is an attempt to normalize this stuff. What else would it be? I'm fine with normalizing this stuff - because, again, my ideal world is one where this stuff isn't a big deal. I just don't think that this is the way to do it.
Regarding the last, you're...actually somewhat incorrect, but I can't really respond to the last without breaking forum rules. Regardless, yes, it's their forums and their game. But this doesn't mean that I have to agree with them, or that I can't think that it's a well intentioned but ultimately counterproductive attempt.
EDIT: Anyway - this has been an interesting exchange, but I've spent way too much time on this today. Going to go and attempt to be productive now, we can pick this up tomorrow if you'd like. But I think we've hit the point of the discussion where we're out of fertile ground.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982189#Comment_2982189
I'm...not sure how this is evidence at all of any sort of 'anti LGBTQ+ movement'.
A specific, mainstream anti-LGBT movement? And I'm assuming you want examples outside of most major religious institurions, because otherwise there's already plenty there.
Then, it's likely I can't give you one specific major movement. However, there doesn't have to be one big movement for there to be anti-LGBT+ sentiment. And this sentiment can be found throughout a lot of the major western countries. Obviously, if you're not looking for it then it's very difficult to see, so I can't blame Mr. "Everything was better when I was a young'n" for not really wanting to dig in too deep into the world, but I can promise you it's there, from the UK government and the conversion therapy fiasco, to the "LGB Alliance" gaining in popularity despite being horrifically transphobic, to the rise of "gender-critical" viewpoints (who, again, just use this as an excuse to be transphobic), to the Don't Say Gay bill, to trans sports bans, to even the nearly decades old case of Lee v Ashers Bakery which has been ruled, yet again, to not be homophobic despite showing clear discrimination. We can even look back further within UK Law, and compare the case of R v Brown (1993/1994) and R v Wilson (1996), in which sadomasochistic activities between consenting gay men was ruled as illegal, and the defence of consent was unavailable to be used (Brown) and yet a man carving his initials into his wife's buttocks was ruled to have the defence of consent available (Wilson).
Anti-LGBT+ sentiment is everywhere and has been for a long time. Try looking for it.
Mm. Let's take a look here, because there are some interesting points.
- Religious institutions are a very tricky one, let's avoid it - because...yeah, it's a can of worms and religion based discussions never end well.
- Ah. You use the word 'sentiment'. I think that's dangerous, because what you're essentially talking about is what people think as opposed to what they do - which in terms of a 'movement', would have to be systemic and would need some sort of concrete goal.
- I don't care about 'think', at all. I care partially about 'say'. What I care primarily about is 'do'.
- You can definitely call someone who takes a bigoted action a bigot (yes, that's circular, but only for the sake of brevity). You need to be careful when you call someone who says something a bigot, because this often comes down to language being an imprecise tool - charity is always essential. But...sentiment? Yeah, I'm hesitant, because this is where you start getting into 'coding' and the like, and it all gets very subjective.
- As for the rest, let's go one by one.
- The UK has a huge schism between two very loud and very radical groups...what I'd probably describe as the Dworkin/Bindel style radical second wave feminists (often lesbian separatists who, yes, tend to be...pretty out there and genuinely seem to hate anyone who isn't a cisgender lesbian) and a hyper-progressive, very esoteric subset of trans activists, with a lot of others being caught in the crossfire (let's not start in on a specific children's author...). I don't like either of these groups, due to both the viewpoints they espouse and the tactics they use, which include intimidation and outright violence. If you want to view...what you'd probably call TERFs (actual TERFs, not just a shorthand for 'disagrees with trans activists) an anti 'T' movement then - sure - but now we're getting into very odd territory, as we're using an LGB group as an example of an anti LGBT movement, when before it seems that the implication was a more conservative group.
- I love to dig into the world, which is why I spend...probably too much time talking with people online about this (if I didn't, why would I be doing what I'm doing right now?). But I am a rationalist, and I like to be right. Which means that I'll always test assertions and claims out, and poke at things that I don't fully understand.
- I think we talked about the conversion therapy thing in another thread. As with...far too many things, it's not what is being reported, at all.
- 'Gender critical' refers to, from my understanding, accepting that someone can transition in terms of gender but not in terms of sex. Unless you're meaning this another way - I don't see the problem with this perspective, the 'biological sex is a social construct' discourse is pretty fringe.
- The DSG bill isn't an attack on LGBTs at all. There is nothing targeted about saying that conversations about sexual identity don't belong in kindergarten, and even if you disagree with that assertion, it's a hell of a stretch to somehow paint this as homophobic.
- Trans sports is a contentious topic even within progressive circles, and I don't think that the vast, vast majority of the disagreement here is bigoted - it mostly comes down to concerns over fairness.
- Lee V Ashers is a very complicated test case, as it comes down to compelled speech versus freedom of expression, particularly religious freedoms. I don't see this as any evidence of bigotry. Saying that you can't discriminate is one thing, but saying that you are legally compelled to publicly *endorse* an ideology, particularly one that runs contrary to your religious beliefs - that I'm iffy on. EDIT: What bugs me about this case is that it was contrived - this was an activist who deliberately set out to trap these people by asking them to do something they knew they couldn't do, as this would violate the tenets of their faith. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out, considering that freedom of expression is a lot less concrete in the UK.
- R v Brown and R v Wilson...I disagree with the verdict here, but there is nothing in any way anti LGBT in these cases, as this applies to all extreme BDSM acts, and this was further codified in R v Emmett. Note, I'm not a scholar on UK law, but we - bizarrely enough - covered this stuff in my Criminology studies way, way back in my uni days.
- Again - out of your examples, the only one I'd agree with being 'anti LGBT' is the LGB alliance, and here we have an LGB group infighting with a 'T' advocacy group. As to the rest, we've got 2 bills that aren't, the sports issue which is massively contentious even within LGBT circles and three court cases which are, respectively, a religious freedoms/expression issue and a BDSM specific issue.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982219#Comment_2982219
- i mean that the world we are living in the way it is can be very destructive towards LGBTQ+ people, everywhere in the world, obviously it’s been getting better in the west but that doesn’t mean it’s in any way good or doesn’t need to get better. And acting like it’s been better a decade ago is just ignoring the actual issues.
- Regarding the ‚T’: Maybe first of all we should accept that there are transgender people and they don’t deserve to be hated/discriminated for their existence.
- As for movement, maybe you are focusing on the word itself way too much; there are plenty of people outright hating/discriminating LGBTQ+ people in the modern west. Can you agree on that or is that already something you would say isn’t true?
- LGB people don’t have equal rights everywhere in the modern west. That’s just not true. And it’s not just a few issues in the way…
Okay, let's dig down.
- What, in your opinion, would a world that isn't destructive to LBGT folks look like? Be as specific as you can, and remember that 'world' doesn't mean 'the west'. How would you go about achieving this? Conquest?
- I'd happily say that I think that this stuff was, as a whole, better a decade ago - because my goals are purely egalitarian. Equality based, not equity based.
- I don't think anyone rational would say that transgender people don't exist, or that they deserve to be hated. I don't think that this has ever been the dominant mindset, or as GBK would say, 'sentiment' in the modern west. It comes down to: exactly what does this existence entail, and what accommodations should be made, weighing both the interests of transgender folks and the interests of others.
- You used that word, which is why I chased it.
- Define 'plenty of people'. Because discrimination is illegal, so if it's happening - you can sue the pants off whoever is doing it. The only contentious issue is the 'T', as we've discussed, and we're several steps away from even being able to accurately define what this sort of discrimination would look like - because we still can't really define what the 'T' actually means.
- Yes, they do. But I'll give you a chance to elaborate here - can you name me a single legal right that LGB folks don't have that straight folks do have, that isn't currently being litigated or doesn't come down to semantics?
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982184#Comment_2982184
And yes, I do think that we were doing better as a society in terms of this stuff even a decade ago than we are now.
this take is exclusive and destructive for many people in the LGBTQ+ community - especially those not part of LGB.
if someone uses the activism as a reason to not accept people for their sexuality orientation/identity then I don’t know what to tell you but… those people would have another excuse for their hatred anyways.
and again, I have told you I am not invested in this other stuff - even not Cyberpunk. This whole discussion is already going off topic but you are constantly trying to drag it even further off. But I am sure there were LGBTQ+ people speaking up against it.
as for movement, there doesn’t have to be a single named group. I am sorry but if you don’t see homophobia/transphobia in your modern western world then I can not help you. You deliberately choose to not see it.
Okay, then let's avoid the Cyberpunk thing - I was really just trying to give you a chance to prove your assertion, because it was a much bigger event than the others we were talking about.
Regarding the rest:
- I'm still not sure what specifically you mean by 'exclusive and destructive'. Can you specify?
- Yes, the 'T' is the current fracture line - because it's a topic that even the LGBT community can't seem to agree on even the basics of, or even what the terms being used actually mean. Is gender dysphoria a disorder, or is that bigoted? If it's not a disorder, then how do we quantify it? Is identifying enough, or does there need to be some sort of hormonal or medical intervention to qualify? What accommodations should be made societally? There needs to be some sort of agreed upon ideological foundation before we can even start talking about representation and other granular societal changes, let alone what constitutes being bigoted against it.
- People are people. Human beings are evolutionarily hardwired to categorize based on the behavior and actions of others within that category. When people are extensively exposed to what you described as 'toxic elements', be it them demanding that things they like be changed or cancelled, harassing people or saying/doing bizarre things and see no or minimal pushback, then - yes - that is going to create a barrier to acceptance. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying that this is how the human animal functions. It's not always fair - but it is what it is, and you aren't going to change that.
- Regarding the movement - that was your assertion, not mine. And yes, for a 'movement' to exist, there has to be some sort of named group, otherwise you may as well be hunting witches. As I said, yes - there will always be isolated incidents of bigotry, but a few swallows do not a summer make. You'd either need to find something objectively bigoted and systemic (which wouldn't be a movement, but it would certainly be worth discussing), or you'd have to find a specific group.
- I think that we are probably going to be using a very different definition of 'phobic' in this regard - as, talking systemically, the LGB have equal rights under the law in the modern western world, and - aside from a few granular, often nomenclature related issues still being litigated - have had them for a while. The 'T' is a lot more difficult, because it's quite new to the mainstream and even progressive groups aren't quite sure how to approach it definitionally, let alone define what constitutes being 'transphobic'. Not that this stops that word being thrown around or being used to shut down discussions or paint people as bigots - hell, I've seen people called transphobic (and literally 'immoral') because they weren't pansexual, or didn't want a partner with specific genitalia.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982189#Comment_2982189
Then maybe take the ‚parental rights in education‘ bill from Florida which in varied form is also making its way into many other states.
You mean the 'DSG' bill. That's another one which is very different from how it's being reported. Always, always go and read the bill yourself, because both left and right wing media right now are 90% spin.
All it basically says is that very young learners (kindergarten age) do not need sex ed, and thus education about sexual identities of any sort has no place in a classroom full of 5 and 6 year olds. That seems...pretty common-sensical to me.
Now, you can disagree with this assertion, but even if you do - it's in no way targeted at any specific ideology or identity.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982165#Comment_2982165
"I'm also not sure if there really is any sort of anti-LGBTQ+ movement in the modern west anymore - can you give an example of an current 'anti' group large or orthodox enough to be considered a movement?"
Ohio has just passed a transphobic ban allowing for a statutory right to inspect the internal and external genetalia of a minor to check they are biologically male or female. I don't think I really need to explain how this is both transphobic and also incredibly dangerous for children in general.
Are you actually kidding me?
Give me a sec, let me look into this one.
EDIT: Okay, let's dig in here, because what this bill actually is and how it's being reported is entirely different.
- There is no 'statutory right' to anything along those lines.
- People are spinning Section 1: C. as this, but what it actually says is that - if there is a dispute regarding the gender of a prospective athlete, it will be settled by a doctor's note, which is in turn just a refinement of the existing legislation - adding the requirement of a medical professional to be involved and also physical/genetic criteria as opposed to a less controlled hormonal test.
- It's really just formalizing the definition of 'sex', in terms of it not just being hormonal.
- The way this is being described makes it sound like the school is going to be inspecting kids, it's nothing at all like this.
- The bill also clearly states that if any student suffers any sort of harm or is even deprived of 'athletic opportunity' gets to sue the pants off that school.
The rest of this is just wrangling over the trans sports thing, which is a very contentious issue right now, even within the LGBT community and I don't think anyone can categorically state what is the right or wrong way to handle it, as it's weighing individual liberty against concerns of fairness.
I'm...not sure how this is evidence at all of any sort of 'anti LGBTQ+ movement'.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982165#Comment_2982165
Wait, are you saying that being an egalitarian is *exclusive and destructive*?
not at all, but you referring to old-school seemed and talking about how it’s getting more and more toxic from the progressive side seemed like you were actually thinking it’s been closer to this „all getting along together“ world sometime in the past. Many people that are requesting inclusion and representation just want that after all.
Also, I don’t see how it’s a blind spot of the LGBTQ+ community? Like.. no? This community is not one single person and there are many within the community talking out against those toxic parts. Maybe we found your blind spot?
I'm also not sure if there really is any sort of anti-LGBTQ+ movement in the modern west anymore
you are kidding, right?
Then...what exactly is exclusive and destructive?
I'm not sure what else you could have meant besides 'egalitarianism'. Still not clear on this one. 'Old school?'. Well, yes, I'm pretty old and come from a different generation, but I'm not sure how that's exclusive or destructive either.
And yes, I do think that we were doing better as a society in terms of this stuff even a decade ago than we are now. I'd have to dig up the study, but - for the first time in a lot of generations - college students are less accepting of different identities than they were in the past, and the #1 reason given was the activism surrounding these identities, particularly online activism, which I think also comes down to how dominant the idea of intersectionality has become and how poorly this works out outside of a purely academic setting.
But...okay - let's test that assertion. Look at probably the biggest and most widely known example I gave earlier, the Cyberpunk ad. Quite unambiguously toxic, from several very progressive and very large media groups. Who, specifically, was talking out against this from within the LGBT community?
Regarding the 'movement' thing, again - let's get more specific, via some sort of concrete, preferably secular example. Because I'm honestly not sure what you mean.
-
@Mooks said:
I guess that being an old-school, 'can't we all just get along?' egalitarian makes me a bit of a dinosaur in online spaces now, but it really doesn't look healthy from the outside
you really have no clue how exclusive and destructive it has been (and in many ways still is) for LGBTQ+ people in this world, do you?
you are now focusing on the toxic parts of the LGBTQ+ community while ignoring the toxic parts of the anti-LGBTQ+ people without realizing that this anti-movement has been the norm for like… ever?
...
Wait, are you saying that being an egalitarian is *exclusive and destructive*?
I'd really like to know...how. Because, in my opinion, an ideal world is one where nobody really cares about this stuff at all, and consenting adults are free to do whatever they want with other consenting adults - and that the only way we'll ever get there is to move past all of this, and let the finer details take care of themselves either organically or, where needed, in the courts.
If this is going to be 'well, egalitarianism is individualistic, and thus perpetuates capitalism, which is problematic', thing, then I'm going to bail right here.
I'm focusing on these parts because they do seem to be a blind spot for the LGBTQ+ community. Again, when these 'toxic elements' pop up, I don't see all that much pushback from inside this community - and this leads to the perception of endorsement.
I'm also not sure if there really is any sort of anti-LGBTQ+ movement in the modern west anymore - can you give an example of an current 'anti' group large or orthodox enough to be considered a movement? You get the occasional fringe bigot, sure, but aside from that - the only examples I can think of are regarding topics that are contentious even within LGBT circles (dating preferences, representation, nomenclature, pronouns, the biological reality of sex and gender etc.).
EDIT: I guess you could consider certain ultra-conservative and rather insular religious communities to be anti-LGBT, but...let's not open that can of worms.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982094#Comment_2982094
Sigh. And this is why I hate getting drawn into these discussions - because, as here, people can be incredibly uncharitable and will start inferring a negative intent where none exists
will agree to that as it happened several times to me in this very thread. Though you haven’t been drawn into it by anything but yourself.
there doesn’t need to be a majority. There will always people praising and hating on anything anyone does within a community, this can’t be stopped. Holding that against such a diverse community as a whole is unfair.
again, I am not talking about batwoman or any other kind of specific representation outside of BHVR, I am currently mentally and physically not even capable of reading into every bit of it. I am talking about David King and inclusion of LGBTQ+ in DbD as that’s the topic. It’s obviously not done perfectly and some kind of constructive criticism is expected and needed. But just looking at the forums and twitter I can tell you it’s been hatred without any reasonable basis and not just from a small minority, but plenty of people. and I am not saying they must have been deleted, that’s a fact, it’s stated kn the rules that these kind of posts will get deleted and result in a ban/warning.
also pick up a mirror. You started this whole argumentation about minority/majority and they supposedly not being rabid (your word that I just used for the other side) but ‚irritated‘. Where is your claim?
also also, that pushback (again, can you backup the claim it’s at least as many as people not wanting a gay character) could very much just be false flagging as well.
Yeah, we're going around in circles now so I'm going to draw this to a close here.
I'm using the other stuff as an example of what I'm talking about, as this is one small part of a much wider discussion regarding the increasingly toxic discourse and reactions around progressive inclusions and alterations to media within nerd culture.
Again, I'm not holding anything against anyone. I'm just pointing out what seems to be a pretty damn clear problem.
My...claim? I already said it, didn't I?
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981986#Comment_2981986
How is it that you feel that BHVR is enforcing acceptance based on an announcement about their stance in support of the LGBTQ+ community?
Literally they only made an announcement and added to David's lore, and people are acting like they are going to hold some grand same-sex wedding where the entity is officiating the ceremony and the rest of the survivors are holding rainbow flags and it plays as soon as you open the game. You keep using the word hyper-focusing as if somehow BHVR has forgotten that there are other elements/characteristics about said character, which is not true.
I think there are things that you will never understand unless you have actually experienced them for yourself. So when I bring things up like "Fear of Judgement" I am not alluding that other individuals do not in some way, shape, or form experience it. I am simply emphasizing on the fact that this particular group is experiencing it on the daily by simply existing. So no, I wouldn't even attempt to compare seeing as Gay sex is still illegal in 68 countries, and punishable by death in a dozen. Saying "well there is horrible violence in many parts of the world" sounds like strawman.
I am not inferring negative intent. What I don't like is when people think that because they don't understand the messaging of something it is easier to define it as "loud attention". I could not care less if gamers cared or didn't care that a character has a sexual orientation. This means something to the community that I belong to, and in my opinion it gives people more visibility in a world where there is already enough hate.
BHVR? I'm not...well, I could, but that would unfortunately require me to refer to things that would violate the forum rules, as per moderation decisions (I literally can't be any more descriptive without putting my forum account in jeopardy).
I meant this, again, as part of a wider discussion on this stuff as it pertains to media right now.
Who...exactly is acting like that?
I'm not saying BHVR are hyperfocusing exactly (although they did make more of a fuss over this than I would have).
I'm saying that certain parts of the community are, as per the 'this is an insult, you didn't give us an original LBGT character' or 'David is queer erasure, as he doesn't look gay enough' discourse, and at a macro scale, far too much of the media consuming public who identify as progressive are too heavily focused on this stuff.
As for the rest:
- I hate to tell you this, but you can't demand that you be made to feel a certain way. All you can demand is that nobody take any discriminatory actions against you. You can't police what other people think, and you certainly can't police how other people make you feel. Because nobody gets to do that, ever. Not in any sort of free society.
- Now, those countries you are referring to - let's get more specific. What sort of cultural/political systems do they have? Are they remotely analogous to liberal western democracy, or are they ultra-conservative theocracies in the Middle East and Africa? What are human rights like as a whole in those countries and how is a videogame in the west going to alter this (considering that in many, any secular media is defacto illegal?) No, I'm not trying to strawman anyone - but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. These countries need substantial reforms in terms of general human rights and governance, but that can only come from within.
- I think that you've just made my point for me. I'm saying that any overt messaging of this nature is counterproductive, because - as I said - any endorsement of an identity exceptionalizes that identity, and you cannot be both normalized and exceptionalized.
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982094#Comment_2982094
You're absolutely right in that there doesn't seem to be a majority within these movements. I think thats why there never seems to be satisfaction as a community because when one thing happens it'll never be enough for someone else in the community. When one character is made gay, then someone else will want a trans character. When they get the trans character, someone will want a non binary character and so on. Honestly I feel like many companies who try to represent the lgbt community don't fully understand it themselves and I can't blame them when everyday there seems to be a new acronym, pronoun, gender, sexuality, etc. added to the community. Who can keep up with this and understand it all when its constantly changing? I do agree with you in that the lack of orthodoxy within the lgbt community hinders them from having common ground on many things they stand for.
It's a very complicated phenomenon that's probably outside of the scope of this thread, but it comes down to:
- Social media allowing a following to form around what would usually be a fringe ideological nucleus.
- The push for 'intersectionality', which often comes down to a purity spiral where you can't be granular in your beliefs and goals, and are either considered an ally or an enemy based on even slight deviations (I've literally seen the 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' chestnut whipped out multiple times this year on Twitter).
- The push for 'solidarity', which, combined with the above, tends to be interpreted as 'if you don't agree with me, you have a duty to shut up and pretend you do'.
- The normalization of the progressive stack as a concrete, applicable concept.
- Interpreting even the most minor disagreement as evidence of bigotry.
I guess that being an old-school, 'can't we all just get along?' egalitarian makes me a bit of a dinosaur in online spaces now, but it really doesn't look healthy from the outside.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
Nemesis. Do not listen people who says he is weak. He is chase monster and with true perks, he is god.
Nemmy is another 'good' killer. His zombies can be frustratingly RNG at times and some maps have wonky height-boxes that make it really hard to hit people (Swamp...argh). His addons are also blargh.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982070#Comment_2982070
those posts get deleted, even on Twitter plenty of posts got deleted. And there are also those people that outright state they don’t speak their opinion to avoid punishment.
but for someone claiming that it’s just a minority you are quick to blame the lgbt community for something that could also be blamed on a small but vocal minority..
Sigh. And this is why I hate getting drawn into these discussions - because, as here, people can be incredibly uncharitable and will start inferring a negative intent where none exists.
But okay, lets try again.
I'm not 'blaming' anyone.
I'm simply trying to demonstrate how this looks from the perspective of an outsider.
The issue isn't that it's a minority or a majority - it's that there doesn't seem to be a majority within these movements. That's what I mean by orthodoxy. It's one of the weaknesses of this new incarnation of 'intersectional solidarity' - which these days seems to mean 'I have to defend my 'team', even if I don't agree with what they are saying, or at least refrain from public disagreement'.
Again - this wasn't a few posters on a forum. This was thousands of people harassing an actress for 'not being gay enough' to play Batwoman, a mangaka for making the wrong character bi and massive media outlets like Kotaku and Polygon crucifying a game designer for...you know, I still don't fully understand the 'why' there. They just had a beef with CDPR. And they only people I saw disagreeing with them were centrists.
Also - you can't use a void as an argument. If you are asserting that there is a significant number of people who are as 'rabid' as you claim, and I can't find many, you can't just turn around and say 'well, there must have been but they were deleted' or 'well, they aren't saying it but I know that they are thinking it'. As I said - as someone who tends to be in the 'neutral' camp, there was at least as much pushback from progressives on making David gay (because it wasn't the exact representation they wanted) as there was from people who didn't want a gay character, if not more.
-
@ThatOneDemoPlayer said:
Especially when there are 3 God Pallets next to Shack, along with 2 God Pallets on the boat?
Should I just wait in a corner?
It's a horrible, horrible map.
Shack is the least obnoxious part of it.
The major issues are the 'boat' tile, and the 'log' tile - as sometimes you get the so called 'poglog' spawn, where the log spawns right in front of the boat and if you're on an M1 killer, it's a literal infinite if they run it right.
Other issues are the inconsistent height based collision and the frigging vegetation that can make survivors invisible.
Your best bets are:
- Don't attempt to chase around the log - vault it and try to push them off.
- If you get a poglog, you may have to camp, as a savvy group of survivors will be unbeatable if they abuse it.
- If they run up onto the top of the boat, wait at the bottom - they'll often just drop down for you.
- If all else fails, try to get a 3-4 gen, as the gens do spawn fairly close to each other.
- Try to avoid chasing people into the netted area under the structures, as these can be almost impossible to hook from.
- If you can hook someone on the edges of the map, you can quite easily choke out the approaches and fight unhooks.
- This is another Badham or Eyrie - be utterly ruthless until you have the game firmly under your control.
-
@Lekitzul said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982039#Comment_2982039
I specifically hate it when a character isn't "gay" enough . I mean, I know their is some typically "gay" fashion, but that doesn't mean David can't be. He's a big buff tough guy, and they can be gay as well. He's doesn't have to be very effeminate or anything.
I wasn't aware of Mineta, but honestly, he would annoy me because he is the joke character in the show I feel. :/ I'm like yeah, the one that is a joke has to be bi?
He's definitely the humorous character, but I found that he got fleshed out really well as the series progressed. And him being bi was actually a very interesting wrinkle, due to his past behavior.
The problem isn't so much Mineta, as it was the ridiculously vicious reaction to the reveal. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - 'we need an LGBT character' far too often becomes 'we need an LGBT character that is the specific character I want, and if you do anything else I'm going to have my 50000 followers call you a massive bigot on your Twitter feed and hassle your publisher'.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982039#Comment_2982039
It’s not a minority sadly, and it’s not just trolling.
i really would love to live in a world where this was the case. But sadly it’s not this world, at least not yet.
i really can’t say much about those other video games and how they managed it and how the community reacted.
How is it not a minority? I just glanced back at previous posts, and I'd say that 95% of the posts about this were either celebratory or, at absolute worst, neutral like myself.
This may sound blunt, but I don't think that you'll get this sort of world until the LGBT etc. 'community' becomes a bit more orthodox (in that they actually get a definitive, majority consensus within their movement as to what they want, who their movement includes and who it doesn't) because, again, from the perspective of an outsider, it looks like there is literally no action that can be taken that some aspect of the community won't go ballistic over and start attacking people - which tends to reflect badly on the entire movement and makes people unwilling to even try.
Beyond this, you can't have both normalization and endorsement. Endorsement explicitly means exceptional, and exceptional is never normal.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981682#Comment_2981682
I don't even mind if they didn't have better anti-cheat since we all know the spaghetti code this game is built on would go haywire and manage to ban 3/4 the player base
That said, it shouldn't be faster and less complicated to do my taxes than it is to report someone. I imagine a major part of why cheaters can stay so rampant is most of the player base doesn't realize you can't just click REPORT and be done with it (and people like me who DO know how to properly report don't bother because I've got better things to do then waste 15 minutes of my life policing BHVRs mess)
Yeah here I'd agree completely. It's absolutely ridiculous that to report someone I need to be recording all my games.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981986#Comment_2981986
Not gonna talk about Lara Croft anymore - i still don’t believe that there wasn’t criticism for her as a female heroine in a time were women were mostly damsels in distress but I do see that I don’t have any evidence for or against this claim.
And it's not because these characters are female, POC or LGBT, it's because this tends to be hyperfocused on to the extent that it becomes the entire focus of the story, often to the detriment of the game, comic or story as a whole.
thing is.. people against inclusion are always making a fuss over this ‚hyperfocusing‘ and call out one simple tweet among hundreds of others.
and yes I say rabid as I have seen plenty of people just here on the forums going on against inclusion and representation on ways that can’t be excused as irritated. Please don’t try to justify those people. I agree there are some among them that are meaning no harm and may be ‚irritated‘, but plenty of them are just people full of hate trying their hardest to use ‚reasonable‘ arguments against inclusion.
I'm...not?
I'm just saying that, from where I'm standing, these are a ridiculously small minority of the people talking about this, and could very well just be individuals poking the bear (see: trolling).
The majority of people seem to be saying...roughly what I'm saying - if you enjoy this, then more power to you - but wouldn't it have been better if this had been a little bit more organic? Also - this seems to be the antithesis of normalization.
Also also: yes, I say 'hyperfocusing' for a reason - because this suddenly becomes the only important thing about the character.
At best, that leads to clumsy storytelling - and at worst sends the discourse around that media product off in all sorts of silly directions (see the 'queer erasure' stuff about David 'not looking gay enough', or how making him gay is an insult because he's not a totally new character etc.).
From the outside, it looks like there is just no way to win here - if you make a 'diverse' character, then people immediately start insisting that you make them 'diverse in the right way' - they can't have flaws, be unlikeable, or have any connections to anything that might be considered 'problematic', can't be portrayed by an actor that isn't 'gay enough' etc.
Once again, my best examples of this outside of DbD would be the Mineta thing from My Hero Academia: after it became popular in the west, fans demanded an LGBT character, but when the author revealed that a specific character might be bisexual, it caused a huge backlash because it was 'the wrong character':
Fans are making memes to cope with the revealThe Cyberpunk ad, where a massive social media firestorm was kicked up because...it was problematic for trans people to be linked to corporate capitalism - in a game all about parodying corporate capitalism (this resulted in a bunch of stuff being cut from the game)
During E3 2019, CD Projekt revealed a screenshot for 'Cyberpunk 2077' with a transphobic ad. It's the third bigoted joke from CD Projekt in just one year.Or what happened regarding Batwoman:
"I wish we would all support each other and our journeys," the actress who came out at 12 tweeted, just before she left.Do you see why, from the perspective of an outsider, this might all seem a bit...well, a bit of a purity spiral?
-
@Leonardo1ita said:
I don't know why, but it seems that the more time passes the more survivors are becoming more sadistic, tbagging, flashlight macroing, rage quitting when a bully failed, slurs in chat. Even when you play fair and you don't camp or tunnel.
Do you have any idea why?
Also, for some reason the word "sadistic" is banned from the in game chat. Why BHVR?
EDIT: also this happens with killers too, with some Nurses mains using rage add-ons, or Blights, tunneling, eating DS and then hitting you on hook even if you played super fair without Dead hard.
It didn't happen this consistently in the past, I swear.
Because, well, to dust off an old chestnut:
It comes down to moderation, unfortunately - and BHVR have been very clear that they think that smack talk and BM is an essential part of the online gaming experience.
-
@bubbabrotha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981106#Comment_2981106
Yeah, is that so hard to believe? I have terrible Internet, especially during the summer, so it would be nice to actually be able to play the game.
Yes - that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly fair for you to ruin multiple games for the other 4 players.
Now, I'd love a system that allows people to DC and reconnect, but that penalty is basically telling you that you have to fix whatever issue is making you crash/DC before playing again, because otherwise you're putting a whole lot of other people out.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981676#Comment_2981676
I am pretty sure Lara Croft has been criticized for this.. even though it didn’t stay in memory - though I could be wrong of course. Wasn’t really invested in videogames back then. But just considering how women were portrayed in media for and how it changed. Well.
and people are getting rabid about inclusion of LGBTQ+ character in media all the time and are trying to find any thing they could complain about it. People act like there was a were it was okay and just accepted - but there never was such a time.
Well, yes. Because the lack of orthodoxy within these movements means that something can be both simultaneously praised for being x while also being demonized for being x - it's a perfect lose/lose situation these days, as you cannot appease a base that doesn't actually know what precisely it believes or wants.
Lara Croft was an icon of the genre, and not once did anyone at the time go 'oh wow, a female main character that kicks all the butt!'. Because that just wasn't something people were especially concerned about. Hell, I've always played female avatars, and it's only within the last...maybe 5 years that anyone called attention to it (apparently it's 'massively problematic' for a straight, cisgender male to play a female avatar in World of Warcraft...urgh, that was some ridiculous guild drama).
You say 'rabid'. I say 'irritated'. And it's not because these characters are female, POC or LGBT, it's because this tends to be hyperfocused on to the extent that it becomes the entire focus of the story, often to the detriment of the game, comic or story as a whole.
There probably hasn't been a time when this was completely normalized, but it was definitely a bit less...well, arch than it is now. Again, this is my opinion, but the way to normalize something is to just have it be there, not call a massive amount of attention to it. This was the case with the L and the G, with the rest of that acronym being...difficult, as even within progressive movements there are about 10 different variations, with many of the identity groups themselves being the subject of contention.
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981152#Comment_2981152
While I respect your view, I think you are missing the mark when it comes to LGBTQ+ people not being considered "normal" or "equal".
I personally take issue with comments like that because it makes me wonder if you truly understand the messaging, and the why this "attention" part is needed. It goes a lot deeper than a video game and a company making a stance on the issue.
I don't think people like myself (LGBTQ+) are looking to feel "normal", only accepted for who we are. Being treated normal would mean that people have already accepted us for who we are. Without prejudice, without fear of judgement or even violence... none of which is currently happening around the world.
For me, the fact that the devs made a simple message stating their stance on the matter on twitter, followed by the addition of David's lore in making him a homosexual character... and the fact that we are still having a discussion today is just baffling to me.
There is obviously still a problem when the forums erupt simply because the DBD lore now says there is a gay character in-game and the developers who they themselves employ LGBTQ+ people and are in support of them, want to have something to say about it.
It just proves that a lot of people are only comfortable as long they don't have to face this "reality" that one day the game might have a character of a different sexual orientation besides heterosexual. Currently the only attention I see being hyper-focused on is the one where people can't live with that reality.
Okay, let's dig in here a bit. Again, I'm trying to balance being blunt and not offending anyone, so please read with a charitable mindset.
You are...partially correct, but I think that you're getting things a little out of order.
'Acceptance' is a point on...well, what I'm guessing is that path you're looking for.
It usually goes:
Tolerance -> Acceptance -> Normalization.
You can demand tolerance - in that people won't take actions to stop you from enjoying your identity, but may not agree or be fully comfortable with it. Acceptance and normalization are something that will occur organically, over time.
If you start attempting to bypass tolerance and instead enforce acceptance, it seldom goes well, because it often ends up feeling forced.
I don't think that hyperfocusing on this stuff, and particularly the endless and often venomous criticism or wokescolding of media for not being 'diverse' enough (or worse, 'diverse but not in the way I personally approve of' - see the Cyberpunk drama, Batwoman, MHA etc.) is productive, and may actually work against you - because when people are confronted by extreme criticism/attempts at cancellation for even well intentioned attempts at placation or inclusion, they tend to become resentful.
Also - prejudice? Sure. As long as we are talking in a legalistic sense (you can't demand that anyone thinks a specific way, only how they act). But 'fear of judgement' - that's ridiculously subjective. I don't think there is anyone in the world who doesn't at least partially fear judgement in some sense. And as for 'violence around the world'...I'm not sure that's within the scope of what anyone can demand, because there are large parts of the world where violence is horribly common and there are deeper societal issues that need to be fixed before this stuff is even on the radar.
Beware Kafkatraps - using the criticism of an action as the justification for that action, because that tends to devolve into circularity very fast.
Again - I think you're inferring a negative intent where there is none. I'd say that the vast, vast majority of gamers don't really care about their character's sexual orientation outside of RPGs, because it's not relevant to the game at all in, again, almost any game. When this stuff starts being introduced, it very quickly becomes a minefield (again, see Cyberpunk or Batwoman) and everyone loses.
-
@Nos37 said:
There's seriously no in-game mechanic that detects insane move speed, even while slugged?
A survivor hanging from an invisible hook, and the game registers that as normal??
How is this obnoxious [bad word] still happening?
https://gameclips.io/Nos37/8d2876e2-98e9-4832-87df-b6a438d28ebb
It was the Cheryl-- I mean the Cybil Bennet with the Ebony Memento Mori and no perks equipped who was cheating. Glad the other survivors went along with it and had a blast.
Uninstalled, btw.
Because, in a nutshell:
- There is a limit to how much anti-cheats can poke into what you are doing on your PC, without violating privacy laws.
- Obfuscation of cheaty programs has never been more sophisticated.
- Cheating is now a ridiculously lucrative industry.
@tippy2k2 said:
Because an anti-cheat system that wouldn't be an absolute embarrassment in the 2000s cost money. BHVR would rather force their player base to deal with it and police their game. Then they don't have to spend money on it, player experience be damned.
Yes, EAC is weak.
However...
Even games with expensive proprietary anti-cheats tend to have hackers. I can only think of one PvP game that doesn't, and that's LoL. And that's because LoL is handled almost entirely server side.
It stinks, but these days - if you can afford a beefy monthly fee and hang out in the right Discords, you can have a hacking suite for almost any game on the market.
-
@RisingTron said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981151#Comment_2981151
Jennifer says she goes both ways in the movie lol.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981152#Comment_2981152
I just want to be able to play as a character that I can see myself in bro.
If you don't mind me asking - why?
I mean - for a long chunk of gaming, characters were barely recognizable as human, let alone specific. This is what I mean by it striking me as a bit self defeating - we've gone from universal appeal to more and more granular 'representation'.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981189#Comment_2981189
Where exactly is a problem here?
just because some people are asking for more doesn’t mean most of the people aren’t satisfied. There will always be people complaining no matter what it’s about. That’s not a problem nor an argument against representation.
also the devs have confirmed there will be more LGBTQ+ representation in DbD and both new and existing characters are possible.
It's not a problem. It's just a bit...odd, and I wonder if it's counterproductive.
To me, a good game is universal. Tomb Raider was the absolute business when I was a teen, and I don't think anyone complained that they had to play as a woman. This idea that you can only enjoy a game if someone in the game 'represents' you...I guess I just don't understand it.
And it's not so much that people aren't satisfied - it's that people get rabid about this stuff, if it's not handled to their liking. My best recent example - look at what happened to the original Batwoman actress.
-
@jamally093 said:
It was one of my favorite maps to play one because I found it extremely unique and one where a win/lose rate seemed normal for me and I feel like most people miss it. So why doesn't Behavior just make a map that's like Hawkins but isn't it's not like Netflix made a creepy lab it's a common type of please to be fair so why don't they just make a sorta new Hawkins.
The killer in me misses Hawkins.
The survivor in me makes me glad that it's gone.
-
@RisingTron said:
One of the arguments I saw when BHVR announced that David was gay (As well as the Pride charms) is this:
"This is a horror game. Why does their sexuality matter?"
Or
"This is a horror game. Why are there rainbows everywhere?"
And it always makes me think...dang, this person is oblivious to the horror genre haha. LGBT+ rep has been ingrained in the horror genre for as long as I can personally remember. Ignoring subtext or potential "Well, maybe it doesn't mean that-" situations, we could always look at the more blatant examples in both classic and modern horror media.
Chucky is one of the biggest horror franchises to date. With both a gender fluid character (Glen / Glenda from Seed of Chucky 2004) and gay + bisexual characters. (Jake and Devon as well as Tiffany in the 2021 TV series It's so good please watch it season 2 is coming this year.)
Freaky, The Fear Street Trilogy, Jennifer's Body, Hellbent (A very fruity slasher from 2004), Hellraiser, The Haunting of Hill House & Bly Manor, Raw, Thelma, The Wild Boys, Knife + Heart, BIT
And we all know Frank-N-Furter from Rocky Horror Picture Show.
This isn't even close to ALL of the examples of LGBT+ representation in the horror genre. You've got Scream, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (I left this one out of my OG list because it's not blatantly said, however I think most people can watch this movie and read into the subtext lol.)
I hope this doesn't come across as a bait post. I wanted to genuinely explain why having openly LGBT+ characters in DBD DOES fit and is needed, as well as recommend some great, gay, horror movies and shows. I want to see more LGBT+ rep in DBD, and hope BHVR don't just come out once a year (hehe, come out.) and say a different character is this or that.
I've said it before in this forum, but I'll say it again: Give us an openly gay, DRAG QUEEN survivor! With cosmetic pieces in and out of drag! How many drag queens do you all see on Twitch playing DBD? I SEE LOTS. AND they're fog whisperers! They're all gorgeous and so kind and sweet! Contact them and take inspiration from them! Let them help you curate a character that is genuine and doesn't seem like a last second hand wave decision. (Don't get me wrong though, I love David, and I love him being gay. I'm sure the devs have plenty of tome entries and lore planned to flesh David's character out and make it feel more natural. But, it was a very sudden announcement with no build up or anything.)
There are 30 survivors in DBD. (31 counting Haddie.) and thousands of DBD players around the world. All of different races, genders, sexualities, lifestyles. So I think it would be great to have as many people feel represented as possible. It's more important than people think. I fully believe BHVR is genuine with their love and support of the LGBT+ community. I don't think they're in it for the money like a lot of companies. (I mean, David is literally a free character. If they wanted to make money they could've chosen a paid character.)
Announcing David's sexuality was actually a huge step. But I hope there's more in the future!
Okay. My take, as the grumpy old resident forum centrist.
Yes, horror has always been a refuge for a variety of societal outcasts, and deals with themes of alienation and misunderstanding, which would certainly make it attractive to the LGBT crowd. Also us nerds.
I'm also fine with you having representation, if it really matters that much to you.
However...
At the end of the day, if you hyperfocus on one identity criteria, you ensure that that criteria will never be considered normal, let alone 'equal' - because by loudly drawing attention to it, you're setting yourselves apart. I think people were starting to figure this out in the 90s and early 2000s, but we've slid backwards as a species.
Regarding a 'drag queen' survivor, this stuff is a minefield - not from the people who don't care, but from the various, constantly schism-tastic activist groups that could easily take offense at any attempt, no matter how well considered, because it doesn't fit their precise criteria for 'acceptable representation'.
Just look at what happened in MHA, or for a Dead by Daylight example, the wokescolding threads about the Artist patch, and how it's not acceptable to have a POC survivor have his background. Or, hell, the threads about David being 'queer erasure' because he 'didn't look gay enough'.
-
@GannTM said:
I’m probably going to be returning to DBD when the Dredge releases and I want to know which killer I should grind out when I come back. I’m still debating between maybe Huntress, Pinhead, Demo, Plague, and a couple others, but I’m just not sure yet. Any recommendations on who is the most fun when mastered?
Demogorgon is a fantastic pick, because while he's not the objective strongest, he's almost never sad to get any map, has a ton of very different playstyles within him and is also as rare as hens teeth.
Plague is another. She's weird in that she always feel like she's struggling - until you suddenly snowball. Can also play a few different ways.
Some other fun picks:
Cenobite: Complex, not weak, quite rare, can do some incredible stuff once you get good. A little predictable.
Artist: I'd say the highest skillcap killer in the game, right alongside Billy. Once you get good at predicting how survivors run structures, you can set up some evil traps - or just snipe people from over the map with a well spotted double bird. Very tough to learn though, and her addons are kind of dull.
Hag: She's not for everyone, but the absolute shenanigans you can pull with traps and the fact that she jumpscares people to death will never not be fun for me. Can be a little weak against a team with a ton of healing, and her awful early game necessitates Corrupt.
Ghostface: I hated this killer when I started learning him, but he's steadily become among my favorites. Just so satisfying to use, and his new purple addon is going to be bonkers strong. His big weakness is SWFs, but that's true of most killers. Also - you will learn to hate Spinechill.
-
@GoshJosh said:
His aesthetic and his power. Easy mode Huntress, with backup Main Event camping always a possibility just in case.
Huh. I find Huntress way scarier, and often a better camper. She's also a million times easier to play, due to her hatchets having a much more generous hitbox and you can chew through healthstates.
Trickster is devastating in open fields or long corridors, and that's about it.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I can only think of two things:
Most Tricksters run the bouncing knife add on which makes his power feel spammy
He extremely effective proxying or hard camping hooks in dead zones or inside of 3 gens. That's certainly the way I play him. And he's not very strong elsewhere. Hard countered by pre-dropped high wall tiles.
Mm. I play a roaming Trickster, as I find he can get hooks fairly consistently (it can take a while, but they're going down eventually) with Pain Resonance.
The weird thing is that I play a lot of killers that can camp better than Trickster - Hag, for example, and I still see maybe twice as many DCs on Trickster.
@lauraa said:
A)very feast/famine killer
B) game play pattern is boring. hit 2-3 knives, get to the next area, repeat until health state secured
C) pop korean musicians have no place in horror according to some people
D) he trips some peoples gaydar, so he makes some people irrationally angry but they won't admit it openly
those are the most common ones I see.
A. Yeah, but I'm not sure why that makes him hated.
B. I find there's actually a lot of nuance to playing him well, as knives can slip through all sorts of gaps.
C. Yeah, he does stick out a bit. It felt like he started as a Joker reference, but someone decided 'hey, let's make him a K-Pop idol' and it all went downhill from there.
D. He's glam :) Never been sure why people associate glam rock style as anything less than manly as hell.
-
@Zozzy said:
They can't stand on the other side of a pallet or low wall loop and tbag.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't mind facing him at all, unless he's camping (but that's true of a lot of killers) but I get DCd on constantly the second people see it's Trickster.
-
@DoritoHead said:
Is the better play to-
~Hit one survivor, milk them for Blood Orbs, then find other survivors and down them with Blood Fury
~Hit multiple survivors to get blood from them all, then use Blood Fury
As a rule of thumb, don't get fancy to start. If you see a chase, take it. Blood will come as a natural part of hitting and chasing survivors.
I find that when I try to get fancy and injure multiple people for the blood, then I might as well not transform as they are already injured and I'd have been better off hooking.
I generally hit, chase and hook. By the end of the chase, I can transform and go after someone else.
-
@pizzaduffyhp90 said:
Though I really hate SBMM/MMR being a thing, if I wasn't gonna say that I'd choose probably Attack on Titan becoming a thing for this game because I really hate anime it's gross and I wish it was never a thing.
If you like anime than that's ok everyone likes something that someone else might not.
SBMM is so much better than ranks ever were.
Attack on Titan is awesome. I'm hoping for Tokyo Ghoul or Berserk next.
As to your question - Badham. Or map offerings in general. And COH to boot.
@Aven_Fallen said:
Well, to be honest, even if someone dislikes Anime, Attack on Titan is probably worth a watch. The hype is 100% justified.
To the question - Twins. I wish they would not exist in this game.
Twins are...ugh. They're clunky to play, miserable to face and just terribly designed. Plus, they can be bloody impossible to pip against at times, as Victor gives no credit for chases.
-
@AnnoyingNarrator said:
As someone who mostly plays killer, I would glady trade the ability for survivors to consistently heal themselves in exchange for some form of early game delay like corrupt.
What deal would you make with those who have the audacity of selecting to play the other side and what would that deal be?
Hmm. Not sure what I could offer, as I don't camp or slug. I'll tunnel like a demon though if you keep running into me.
I'd say though:
- Flashlight macros are completely removed.
- Killers can no longer hit survivors on the hook.
-
@DarKStaR350z said:
I’m wondering if the survey results will be compared with any other data, such as killer, map and perks?
I feel there are often a lot of factors that go into wether a game felt fair and/or fun aside from player skill.
Certain killers can feel harder or easier to face depending on the map and the tile rng.
As killer it can sometimes feel that even if you are doing everything right, quickly and outplaying the survivors; you can often lose the game based on how fast gens can be completed.
This changes massively depending again on the killer, map and perks. If you’re playing an m1 killer with no chase power or gen defence on a map with lots of safe pallets like The Game; then you can feel the game was unfair even if you felt like the survivor skill was much lower than yours.
For survivor you can loop the killer all game and feel more skilful, but if Leatherface with NoeD wants to tunnel and camp someone out of the game and the map has a lot of deadzones from tile rng, that won’t feel fair despite feeling your skill was higher.
I just wonder if there are other things being compared to the survey results or is it just as simple as it looks on the surface and equating solely player skill with fairness without taking the many other factors during gameplay into account?
Also how are people answering with regards to mismatched survivor skill level?
I get there’s an option to say there was a mismatch, but if you have 2 potatoes and 2 god tier loopers; do you say they were better/worse or the same skill as you, despite no answer really giving an accurate representation?
Yeah, it's a tough one. Did mine from the survivor POV, as I'm...mostly okay with killer these days, at least the higher tier ones.
What I don't think people really understand about this game is how the RNG determines so, so much. I'm not just talking about the map - I'm talking about the perks and addons the survivors choose against what killer and perks/addons the killer chooses.
If I'm in a solo queue game with a bunch of people memeing around, with no items and get thrown up against a fully stacked triple blink Nurse, I'm going to get stomped.
However, if I'm in an SWF with a bunch of people running stacked perks and addons and get put up against a Padded Jaws Trapper, we're going to roll them.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2978502#Comment_2978502
"video game courtesy and respect is so much differnt to irl."
This is where I would disagree. How someone conducts themself while "anonymous" and how they treat someone they don't know online is usually a good indicator as to how they are in real life.
Just to be clear I am talking about people displaying actual toxic behavior. Not a survivor writing GG to a killer who got no kills.
Agreed.
How you act towards other people when there are no rewards for being nice and no punishments for being awful is a genuine indicator of your true nature.
@shalo said:
Most game Devs have realised that the toxic arsehole demographic, while huge, is not enough to sustain a modern game. BHVR hasn't quite got that memo yet.
Yup. I've been saying this for a while.
I'm no snowflake, but I do think that having a good community tends to retain people, and having a toxic mess of a community tends to drive people away.
LoL is a good example of a game that realized this - legendarily awful community, Riot introduced the Tribunal and the Summoner Code, and within a few months it was night and day.
Look at WoW, for another example. Horrible community that was left to fester for a decade. A ton of people jumped ship for FF, which has a legendarily awesome community, partially because it's slightly overmoderated. Now WoW is instituting a 'social contract', much like LoL's 'Summoner Code'.
-
@toxik_survivor said:
Guys, who cares about what someone else says. If other people get under your skin because of "bad game manners" then maybe you shouldn't be playing dead by daylight. Something is "toxic" if you make it toxic. I saw a recent post that was like "I got stomped and someone said gg. bad game manners." Like how on earth is that bad game manners. Saying GG is very respectful no matter the end results. The sensitivity of people these days astonish me. It's just a video game! Ive played this game since huntress release and there is not 1 time where I was toxified (If that's a word) by someone trying to make me mad. I get frustrated if i can't catch a good survivor in a chase, but I have never gotten frusterated when someone was trying to intentionally be toxic towards me. I just don't get "game manners." You play the gameand do what you can to win, and at the end you say GG, and on to the next match. It's that simple.
...What did I just read?
But okay, let's try.
When people talk about being toxic, they aren't talking about someone saying 'GG' (where did you find this, by the way? I've literally never seen someone complaining about this in DbD). 'GG' or 'GGWP' is mostly just a reflex (I know that GLHF and GGWP were standard in my SC2 days). If someone's upset about that, then yes - a bit thin skinned.
However, there are certain things that are unambiguously toxic. Flashlight spamming, for example - obvious reasons. Teabagging from the exit gates, especially when you know you lucked out with the map or got mismatched, is pretty damn toxic.
See - it's easy to forget that you're playing against real people.
@Thusly_Boned said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2978105#Comment_2978105
It's boundary aggression; like a dog that will bark and bark at another dog so long as there is a fence between them. Except with the online world it's even worse, since you don't have any tangible sense of other people as actual people, just names and avatars. It allows people to act with relative impunity, and often without the sense they've actually done anything to anyone, or of any repercussions.
Boundary aggression. That's such a useful term.
@toxik_survivor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2977951#Comment_2977951
I'm sorry bro if people feel that they are getting bullied through a video game then they need to really check their mental state out. And MMR is the reason new players are leaving. If a new player actually went against a new player then this game would be much better population wise.
No, I think that being annoyed at people being nasty is a natural, human response and it comes down to realizing that you're playing with/against actual people.
I really dislike this trend of 'oh hey, someone went out of the way to be obnoxious, but it's your fault for getting annoyed, not theirs for annoying you'.
MMR isn't perfect, but it's miles better than SBMM was.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2978873#Comment_2978873
Rising numbers on a singular platform is nowhere near enough data to create conclusions on the entirety of the playerbase. There is literally no point using Steam and only Steam's player numbers.
You don't think that Steam is fairly proportional to the playerbase on other platforms?
I don't see why it wouldn't be - there's no reason why consoles would be rising but Steam is falling, or vice versa.
It's not the gross player number that's interesting, it's the wax and wane.