SuzuKR
SuzuKR
About
- Username
- SuzuKR
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
I did not have "People wanting Plague nerfs" on my 2022 bingo
-
Hatch is a pity escape for last survivor despite the survivors failing their objective, but I also don't really mind since it's a win at that point either way for the killer (assuming it's 3K+hatch and not gate escapes and then hatch). Also cause I don't want to deal with immature players holding the game hostage just because they refuse to die.
-
The loud noise notification was the only good part of it.
-
DBD players try to comprehend there are different divisions in a game company responsible for different things (impossible):
-
@Sumnox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2943052#Comment_2943052
What conclusive evidence do you give whenever you speak all the nonsense you usually do? Even if I did have access to direct data by the developers themselves, you'd interpret it in the most convenient way to reinforce your bias.
"Nurse has a 99% kill rate when used by high mmr players"
Your reply would be : "ThAT oNE pErCEnT iS AGainSt eQuaLly sKiLled pLaYErs AnD tHe othER 99 ArE N00bS.."
Nurse consistently averaging out to 2K when played at a high level against other equally skilled players on even-sided maps (with some fluctuations for survivor/Nurse-favored maps, obviously), both in and out of competitive play settings. Also that BHVR has specifically already addressed the topic in a similar manner, where they acknowledged extremely good players will be matched with worse players so queue times will not take forever.
As with any matchmaking game system, there is always a lower number of extremely good players than the rest, and the odds of enough being on at any one time in the same region for a match is fairly low, and so they will be matched with worse players (which there are more of) so queues don’t take forever. This can be seen in League, Overwatch, so on and so forth. When one side is better than the other, the results will obviously be uneven because of matchmaking, not balance.
Extremely good killer players will get large win streaks on every single killer, extremely good survivors will get large escape streaks. That is because they are just blatantly better than what the matchmaking system can consistently match them with. It’s not because every single killer/survivor is OP. MMR inherently cannot give always-consistent matches (unless queue times take hours) for players of that level, as there aren’t enough.
If Nurse is so obviously overpowered, should be easy to find massive amounts of evidence of her consistently over performing against even skill survivors. I’ll wait.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2943261#Comment_2943261
Do you get paid by the DBD Nurses Union? You work hard to spread the message of how perfect Nurse is.
DBD players attempting to understand fun is subjective (literally impossible):
-
One of the weakest items in the game and you want it nerfed.
-
Corn is just bad design in my opinion.
For survivors, there is basically no objects or loops in the corn whatsoever as protection, and they rely exclusively on hoping killer won't see them/chuck things at them through the corn.
For killers, it's a mega pain to see through and artificially makes chase more difficult.
-
By far the most fun to verse, always. Build is irrelevant, facing Nurse is inherently fun.
-
Don't end up in that situation and you won't have that problem. 3 people dying before all gens are done means you and your team played badly and/or the killer played excellently.
-
DBD players when people want to play the new thing:
-
DBD players when people use a strategy the devs acknowledge and balance around on purpose:
-
@Sumnox said:
She should get completely reworked. She has enjoyed about 6 years of cheat mode, I think it's about time she actually gets balanced instead of the "Well, it's a Nurse, let's move on" you have now 24-7.
Feel free to give actual conclusive evidence she consistently overperforms against players of even skill on an even map.
-
DBD players when someone brings a balanced perk to counter a thing: "Clearly this is unfair"
Have you considered ending up in that situation means the killer did better than you all? 3 of the 4 people died before all gens were done. Why should you and your team’s failure be rewarded when the killer brought a perk specifically for one of its intended uses? That is entitled. If you don’t like it, bring a key.
-
Who cares? DBD players when people want to try:
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2942454#Comment_2942454
Tbf that’s very close to a 2k when both sides are using busted perks/items. I want both sides nerfed here but the discussion is on nurse add ons. For example if DH was nerfed (4 we’re used in most matches) that kill rate would be much higher
The point is it’s not that busted when you put best of everything against best of everything, like how you said a god Nurse will end every chase 20s max. That said, I agree with you. Both distance addons (and 3 blink), and Dead Hard and multiple other stuff becomes silly stupid at that level of play. However, like you said, Nurse averages out to 115% only in terms of direct movement across a map overall (charge + blink + fatigue + recharge versus walking), and other stuff also needs to be addressed, like the size of giant maps.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2942469#Comment_2942469
Afaik nurse without add ons is essentially 115% when taking blinks into account. Big maps don’t hurt her as much however due to how she ignores pallets and buildings (especially with 2 floors)
In average lobbies nurse can exploit the 1 or more people who don’t understand her little counterplay much and then proceed to tunnel them easily (DS and BT are negligible to her). Not to mention how basically any solo group will be destroyed if the nurse slugs
A good nurse won’t have much issue with “unpredictable” survivors especially on more open maps like eyrie, blood lodge, ormond etc. She has 2 (potentially 3) blinks so you can use the first to get close and the second to course correct for the hit. Only issue is DH but even I know that perk is busted and needs a nerf just like these add ons
Also if god nurses don’t exist then by your logic god SWF’s don’t exist either correct?
God players perform evenly against other god players. It’s not exactly reasonable to blame balance when matchmaking puts a way better player(s) against worse player(s). Also, there are several maps good and bad for Nurse, just like any other killer really. Lack of LOS blockers does not mean the blinks can’t be mindgamed.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2942410#Comment_2942410
Any evidence for that? Most tourneys I see have the nurse end with a 2k and that’s without these add ons. Sure you could say survivors have handicaps too but besides DH nurse doesn’t give a ######### about the meta
tournaments with complete zero restrictions have led to the nurse getting a negative killrate average
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/297338/statistical-evaluation-of-an-interesting-tournament (6 losses, 5 ties, 3 wins, 1.92K average)
-
@JimmyCasket said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2942010#Comment_2942010
The dumb part about the D/C penalty, is it makes the game lose players for, sometimes, up to several days at a time. They need to make the penalty have a hard cap of 30 minutes - 1 hour. No one will keep playing if they are banned for 3 fricking days!
Fun fact, it can be avoided by not quitting.
-
This is stupid overpowered
-
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2941751#Comment_2941751
My "belief system" doesn't advocate hate towards anyone. Quite the opposite actually but because of the forum rules I don't think I can go into detail to explain to you why. Unfortunately my faith is often stereotyped because of the ignorance of others who claim to adhere to the same faith as I do. I live everyday of my life with many things assumed about me that are not true due to nothing more than a lack of understanding.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2941458#Comment_2941458
To be fair, it’s completely understandable to hope/want a specific character to be revealed to have a specific sexuality or stay vague. Just because LGBTQ+ representation is important and needed doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any heterosexual representation or that every char should get their sexuality revealed.
People have cishet representation in almost every single piece of main media ever. Obviously, it's not like every single character needs to be LGBT+.
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2941299#Comment_2941299
Yes. And you can pretend people like me don't exist if you want too. I certainly won't be mad at you for doing so or demand that you accept me for who I am. You say its not a monumental thing for a person to conform to support LGBT. Thats not true. It depends on what the person believes and how strong their convictions are. No one should be expected to support anything. That is always a choice. Should a Christian be expected to spit in the face of Jesus to satisfy someone who thinks or believes differently than them? This is why I keep saying there is always going to be problems when companies start doing things like "representation matters." DBD consists of more people than just the LGBT community. People of all walks of life play this game. Do they deserve to be represented?
You should take some time to re-evaluate yourself if your belief system tells you that you shouldn't support your fellow person for something that isn't their choice, and also isn't a bad thing. Also one of them doesn't advocate hate against stigmatized groups.
-
@deKlaw_04 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2941299#Comment_2941299
I’m not completely against it I just rather them not mention anything about her. I’m a dude attracted to hot blondes. It’s why I play her a lot lmao. Hope you can understand where I’m coming from
And? Her being lesbian or some other non-heterosexual sexuality doesn’t prevent being attracted to her. That’s not a reason. A video game character in a game that doesn’t even reference the player through character-to-player dialogue isn’t going to like the player regardless.
-
2 and 3 are completely absurdly busted and overpowered, as well as extremely easy to abuse. Absolutely no way in hell.
-
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940327#Comment_2940327
"With a situation like David, after all the years of the game, cosmetics, jokes in the community, headcanons people have been building over the years, it starts to feel like it was decided for the player."
It sure does. I'm glad you made this point because I do think this is how a lot of people feel about it. It really couldn't have been said clearer than that. This is why I say leaving areas like a character's sexuality alone and letting the player create their own narrative about the characters is always the best approach, and most inclusive. Of course someone will come along and call me a bigot because they think bigots don't deserve any kind of inclusiveness. Well, that is an opinion and being inclusive means including the people, ideas and beliefs of those you disagree with. We live in a diverse world. Diversities of faiths, cultures, perspectives, philosophies and so on. No 2 people think alike. The inclusiveness of one thing will always lead to the exclusion of something else and no one should have to conform their convictions to please something or someone that excludes them. So in my opinion if DBD insists on continuing with this representation approach then I hope over time there is something for everyone to relate to or be represented by added to the game. If it does happen then of course not everyone will agree or like everything but the point would be that it wasn't all just about one or two things. It would be about having something for everyone to relate to.
"It is most inclusive when people like me can pretend "certain" types of people don’t exist in the game." People that don’t like LGBT+ characters being added in need to get over themselves. Not everything is a "but both sides" argument when one side is "for LGBT+ inclusivity" and the other is “actively against LGBT+ inclusivity". It is not some monumental thing to """conform""" to being supportive of LGBT+, and yes, people should be expected to be. It's called being a decent human being.
Also, you need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
@deKlaw_04 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940948#Comment_2940948
All I said was that I was cool with any other character coming out but just want Kate left alone. So 18 characters I am ok with coming out with just one being left alone
Want to give an actual reason why you’re against it? Kate’s sexuality changes literally nothing else about her. I’ll wait.
Also, not addressed to anyone in specific, but unconscious discrimination is a common thing that has been studied and known to exist. For instance, growing up in a society that has been extremely homophobic until way later in society, and having internalized homophobia because there is still a lot of societal traces of it that people unconsciously and subconsciously pick up. An example would be shows making jokes about being gay/using the term as an insult. Or showing the "ideal" family to only ever be straight in media. So on and so forth. The person in question would not realize it about themselves, that is just how they have grown up. But that does not change they still have adopted certain perspectives even if unknowingly.
-
The only reason this is bad is because there is no reliable way to perfectly determine intentional vs unintentional disconnections/factor in cheater presence and whatever. If there was a perfect way to determine it, then I agree. People should not queue up if they can’t handle playing a match.
-
DS doesn’t need changes, and making it last infinitely while chasing or slugged is also busted and bad design. It is not meant to hard counter tunneling. It is meant to deincentivize reckless tunneling once.
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940418#Comment_2940418
The funniest part is their post includes messages that you didn't even post to begin with
Idk why you'd go through the effort of re-editing someone elses post like that lol
The other parts are stuff included from Bran, which you’d realize if you were paying any attention to the thread at all. You have this weird idea removing Bran’s parts makes the overall post any different. It wasn't just about Ryuhi in the first place, that's on you and them for making that assumption.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940417#Comment_2940417
>A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.
You certainly have a strange interpretation of the concept.
You sound a bit confused. You shouldn’t use strawman arguments.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940383#Comment_2940383
This is literally what a strawman argument is, in case you were unaware.
I’m glad we both agree this following post is a strawman argument:
@Ryuhi said:
I think this kinda boils down to the issue of retroactively giving/expanding on established character lore. retcons-rewrites-etc always run into that kind of issue, and some people feel like the content's nature makes it feel like its inherently protected from criticism.
Personally, I don't care about the topic in regards to anyone in the fog. Some do, some don't. People on the internet (and especially in this community) absolutely love to assume the worst from people that don't agree with them, while topics like this make some people put a lot more personal stake into their stance (understandably.)
The reason I personally feel it could have been handled better is because of the original point: Its not that they didn't put effort into it (they clearly did) nor that they did any research or care into it being a first step in representation (they clearly did,) but that for some it feels almost like a bait and switch.
For one, sexuality has absolutely zero impact on the trials, nor should it. I'm reminded of Rogue Legacy where there are various genetic and hereditary traits you can take that have various impacts on gameplay, then one of them is just being gay/lesbian. In a game where even your character's height or being farsighted are permutations that can affect various aspects of the game, being gay affects... nothing. Just your spouse's gender in the ending, thats it. I thought that was an outstanding way of handling it, especially because it inherently fortified the aspect that it makes absolutely zero difference to the player what your character's orientation is outside of what meaning you, yourself, provide.
With a situation like David, after all the years of the game, cosmetics, jokes in the community, headcanons people have been building over the years, it starts to feel like it was decided for the player. In the above example from Rogue Legacy, the impact would be completely different if being gay was something that was put on the player without them knowing. You know you are choosing it when you do, and thus, the impact is direct and intentional. Inclusion is important, and you'll rarely find good faith arguments that claim its not in this case. However, if it was something that was randomly or arbitrarily decided for you, you can absolutely bet there would have been controversy over how it was handled, which would lead to a similar situation like this. Sexuality is not a good topic to surprise people with in video games (or even stories in general) where it is both completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to said game or story.
In this case, again, they put a lot of work and effort into that part of the situation. This wasn't some half assed "throw a pride flag on his back and pump out more cosmetics for pride month" situation. It WAS, however, one that fell victim to a discordance in its reception due to the nature of its elements. I've heard the "we didn't want to make them paid dlc" argument, but the long and short of the matter is that the game has, for years, been structured around a "build your own headcanon" stance due to how barebones the lore started, while being slowly "caught up" with each subsequent tome. That in itself will always make controversial topics create discordance on some level. Especially when it might come off as unrelated to what was before (IIRC his original intro involved him having a girlfriend, and just being a rough and tumble ######### who got in bar fights all the time, basically the "macho british lad" stereotype.) Certainly the two are not incompatible, but like I mentioned at the start, the sheer whiplash between the two comes off as a bait and switch.
Hopefully someone doesn't try to find a way to put words or opinions in my mouth from this post, or try to demonize me for something they assume i must have been implying or something, but thats about it. I think they did everything right about it except for having it suddenly be a surprise after this many years.
-
I hope BHVR doesn't announce any of the existing characters are cisgender or heterosexual, that would be pretty forced and just obvious tokenism. It would also be less effort than making a new character.
It would retcon my made-up headcanon that every single character is LGBT+ and would make it feel like a bait-and-switch because I assumed on my own they were all LGBT+ despite no story evidence or explicit confirmation.
For one, sexuality/gender has absolutely zero impact on the trials, nor should it. I'm reminded of almost every single form of mainstream media where there's stuff that has various impacts on the story or significance, then there's just being cisgender/heterosexual. In these sorts of media, being cisgender/heterosexual affects... nothing. Just your gender/who you like, that's it. I thought this is an outstanding way of handling it, especially because it inherently fortified the aspect that being cisgender/heterosexual makes absolutely zero difference to the viewer/player what your/a character's gender/orientation is outside of what meaning you, yourself, provide.
My stance is not against characters being cisgender or straight, just not in favor of it.
In the above example from basically all mainstream media ever, the impact would be completely different if being cisgender/heterosexual was something that was put on the player without them knowing. Gender/sexuality is not a good topic to surprise people with in video games (or even stories in general) where it is both completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to said game or story.
The long and short of the matter is that mainstream media and culture has, for years, been structured around a "just automatically assume all characters are cisgender and heterosexual by default" because how uninclusive society started, while being slowly "caught up" with each progressive struggle for rights.
Hopefully someone doesn't try to find a way to put words or opinions in my mouth from this post, or try to demonize me for something they assume i must have been implying or something, but thats about it.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940325#Comment_2940325
I really just wanna know their motivation to be so against this story line of David being gay.
they say it’s about David not intended to be gay when he was created (which there is not even proof for in any way) but then… they also never ever complained about any other lore addition in any of the other tome story’s??
They don't have an actual reason they can say that won't get them in trouble with the forum's rules lol
@Ryuhi said:
I think this kinda boils down to the issue of retroactively giving/expanding on established character lore. retcons-rewrites-etc always run into that kind of issue, and some people feel like the content's nature makes it feel like its inherently protected from criticism.
Personally, I don't care about the topic in regards to anyone in the fog. Some do, some don't. People on the internet (and especially in this community) absolutely love to assume the worst from people that don't agree with them, while topics like this make some people put a lot more personal stake into their stance (understandably.)
The reason I personally feel it could have been handled better is because of the original point: Its not that they didn't put effort into it (they clearly did) nor that they did any research or care into it being a first step in representation (they clearly did,) but that for some it feels almost like a bait and switch.
For one, sexuality has absolutely zero impact on the trials, nor should it. I'm reminded of Rogue Legacy where there are various genetic and hereditary traits you can take that have various impacts on gameplay, then one of them is just being gay/lesbian. In a game where even your character's height or being farsighted are permutations that can affect various aspects of the game, being gay affects... nothing. Just your spouse's gender in the ending, thats it. I thought that was an outstanding way of handling it, especially because it inherently fortified the aspect that it makes absolutely zero difference to the player what your character's orientation is outside of what meaning you, yourself, provide.
With a situation like David, after all the years of the game, cosmetics, jokes in the community, headcanons people have been building over the years, it starts to feel like it was decided for the player. In the above example from Rogue Legacy, the impact would be completely different if being gay was something that was put on the player without them knowing. You know you are choosing it when you do, and thus, the impact is direct and intentional. Inclusion is important, and you'll rarely find good faith arguments that claim its not in this case. However, if it was something that was randomly or arbitrarily decided for you, you can absolutely bet there would have been controversy over how it was handled, which would lead to a similar situation like this. Sexuality is not a good topic to surprise people with in video games (or even stories in general) where it is both completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to said game or story.
In this case, again, they put a lot of work and effort into that part of the situation. This wasn't some half assed "throw a pride flag on his back and pump out more cosmetics for pride month" situation. It WAS, however, one that fell victim to a discordance in its reception due to the nature of its elements. I've heard the "we didn't want to make them paid dlc" argument, but the long and short of the matter is that the game has, for years, been structured around a "build your own headcanon" stance due to how barebones the lore started, while being slowly "caught up" with each subsequent tome. That in itself will always make controversial topics create discordance on some level. Especially when it might come off as unrelated to what was before (IIRC his original intro involved him having a girlfriend, and just being a rough and tumble ######### who got in bar fights all the time, basically the "macho british lad" stereotype.) Certainly the two are not incompatible, but like I mentioned at the start, the sheer whiplash between the two comes off as a bait and switch.
Hopefully someone doesn't try to find a way to put words or opinions in my mouth from this post, or try to demonize me for something they assume i must have been implying or something, but thats about it. I think they did everything right about it except for having it suddenly be a surprise after this many years.
First of all, it's not a retcon, David was never said to be straight. Before you bring up the girlfriend point, no that does not make someone straight. People learn stuff about themselves later in life, or need to hide their status from bigoted people (eg, family/neighbors).
Second of all, sexuality/gender is irrelevant to the trials, but that's an irrelevant argument. Games aren't only about in-game content. It's representation for an under-represented stigmatized minority in real life. That automatically trumps it. Why does there need to be a reason to be anything? People are not LGBT for some kind of plot reason. There's no such thing as forced inclusion. LGBT+ people exist, so LGBT+ inclusion makes sense. It does not have to be related to the story or the gameplay. That logic is stupid. What, does there have to be a reason for straight or cisgender characters to exist? lmao.
Third, it's literally their fault if anyone assumed anything that wasn't confirmed about him. He was never ever confirmed to be straight. People upset over that can get over it. This is like saying it makes sense to get upset that you got some stranger's name wrong when it was never ever said. If people didn't realize their headcanons were only ever headcanons, that is literally on them.
Of course it's going to be a "surprise" when it hasn't been done in five years of this game's lifespan. But people who have an issue with it being added need to get over themselves.
-
lmao people act like versing swf is the end of the world
-
@Icaurs said:
I have said this before, and I'm curious.
If killers are allowed to see SWF, so that they can determine a match is sweaty and no play. Would you be ok with survivors seeing which killer and addons they are versing so they can determine if a match is sweaty and not play? Or would survivors dodging every time you run iridescent addons be unfair somehow?
Both of them are awful ideas.
-
Imagine not being able to answer a simple question with a non-bigoted reason.
-
@Biscuits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939946#Comment_2939946
What makes you think the que times would go up? Is playing against SWFs really that bad?
It's not, but immature players act like it's unfair and way too difficult to beat them, so there's no way they'd want to play against them.
-
No thanks. It would reward immature players leaving lobby the second they see a SWF.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939929#Comment_2939929
I'm inclined to believe Claudette's tome specifically also hints at her being autistic or something akin to that. So there's that too.
Good point, didn't think of disabilities.
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939931#Comment_2939931
You're avoiding my question. If you can't explain to me what's missing that would constitute effort, then you can't really argue that there was a lack of effort. If you think that there was a lack of effort, then explain to me what is missing that would constitute effort.
You're expecting a lot if you think people like them can come up with an actual reason that isn't against forum rules.
-
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939883#Comment_2939883
I'm curious if they are going to actively represent something other than lgbt. You know since representation matters so much.
Pretty much every non-choice social minority is represented. Women, people of color, LGBT+. And future LGBT+ characters will increase types of LGBT+ representation. What is missing?
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939798#Comment_2939798
That doesn't answer my question. What is missing from this process that constitutes effort?
The ability for people like them to pretend the characters aren’t gay
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939744#Comment_2939744
Well you are one of the few people on this forum who actually thinks universal buffs are not needed but thats not the majority as we can read new "buff gen regression" "nerf most Survivor perks" and other similar threads which are very well received by a lot of people here almost daily.
About the goalposting, well I talked about giving Nurse more buffs which isnt needed and even counterproductive because the stronger she is the harder it is to balance the game, then you appeared and started talking about Retribution and perks but sure, it was me the one moving goalposts and changing the subject... wathever you say pal...
Majority thinking something doesn’t mean it’s true. Also you are the one that pulled a nonsensical claim out of nowhere that Nurse holds back balance and perks which is completely false. I also don’t think she needs buffs. But your earlier point is still blatantly a lie. Maybe don’t get upset when you get called out for making baseless statements and then saying that doesn’t count when someone disproves it.
-
It’s not meant to have a hard counter, that would be bad design for a strategy. The counter already exists. It’s called splitting up and doing gens efficiently since the other survivors aren’t being pressured.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939681#Comment_2939681
Retribution is still a weak perk, with the buff is not useless anymore but isnt amazing for Nurse or for anyone also any strong perk released that doesnt deal with pallets and windows is orders of magnitude stronger on Nurse because her basekit is esentially broken, also take on account wathever they released from Cenobite onwards still has to pass the period of grace before they start changing them, they dont change perks until some months have passed unless there is a real problem with them and I believe certain perk combos are going to get tweaked in the near future.
As you said "Killers may need better base regression" not gonna happen in a meaningful way when you have such disparity between Killers, Nurse being the worst offender, you can hope for more stuff like Call of Brine but base strong buffs? forget it, there hasnt be many of those in a very long time, most of what Killers are getting are either individual buffs, some perk reworks and nerfs to things Nurse already ignores like vaults, pallet distribution/density and stuff like that.
Hmm, what’s that? Oh, that’s the goalposts moving off into the distance. You are completely wrong on Retribution. And I don’t know why we’re going off theoretically with no proof as to future changes when the perks as is are incredibly good. Universal strong buffs aren’t needed for any killer.
-
@HectorBrando said:
Yes a buff, exactly what Nurse needs...
Dont you people realize as long as current Nurse is in the game the Killers will never receive any meaningful base buff? She also deters the appearance of stronger perks.
Which is why new strong perks have come out that are good or amazing on her, as well as perks like Hex: Retribution getting a significant buff which is even stronger on her. Yep. Also, killers don't really need a universal base buff in the first place beyond maybe base regression not being so useless.
I wish people would actually give evidence instead of saying random nonsensical make-believe statements.
-
If you have picture or video evidence, it is bannable. Report in game + online support ticket page.
-
Kavanagh’s Last Breath/Heavy Panting and Torn Bookmark are the only problematic add-ons. Large maps also need a size reduction however, and stuff like survivor spawn locations/tile RNG needs some improvements as well. In general, Nurse by basekit covers overall ground around the same speed as a 115% walking the same distance.
Recharge add-ons are fine and a non-issue.
-
The golden standard for design and balance is Nurse/Blight
-
@Xei86X said:
I hope none as I like the omniverse of people doing fan fiction and deciding for themselves. one of the best things about DBD is the lore that isn't overly backstoried to hell and you can make your own characters out of them. Thats why I'm pretty sad about David "Coming... out by a company" of sorts when it should of been left to the playerbase to decide for their own david.
You can head canon on your own anyways still. Just doesn’t mean it’s canon.
-
@Bran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939039#Comment_2939039
Possibly. That is something which different people can well see differently.
But also, the cosmetic. I've yet seen any real mention of it besides once.
Stop trying to change the topic and either give actual evidence or understand you have no real point.