TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3282323#Comment_3282323
I wasnt talking about blendettes juking you with their natural camouflage, more about "tactic" where griefers would enter the game, burn a purple mist offering, go blendette for the entire game with no desire to fix gens, interact with the team or even find the Hatch to waste your time, I had a few back in the days and while it didnt prevent me from ending the game as you eventually found them it made it a slog, luckily they got rid of all that. Pinhead sitting on the box with Ruin, not letting Survivors pick it and not picking it himself is similar and is just "fix gens through chainhunt and Ruin" but come on, there is no reason to play like that unless you want to troll others.
Both instances the receiving end can technically end the game but its going to take a pointless amount of time, as Edgard said, they really should get rid of these kind of troll "tactics" even if they have counterplay. And there were and still are plenty of these "tactics" where technically people are not breaking the rules but making the game as unpleasant as they can, its like the locker save bully squads or Killers downing the last person, picking, not hooking, downing again, rinse and repeat to avoid bleeding.
They got rid of all that because Blendettes proved to be too good at hiding in plain sight, which is not something devs wanted. It wasn't to curb down on griefing.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3280733#Comment_3280733
As far as I know cleansing takes 14 seconds and in that time chains will spawn and interrupt you.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3280799#Comment_3280799
Claudettes used to be able to blend with the map in a way it was almost impossible to see them, it wasnt a strong tactic because they were doing absolutely nothing and the match was a 3vs1 from the start but it was boring for the Killer to find that ultrainmersed Urban Evading Claudette with a purple mist offering who could prolong the game for an hour, it wasnt holding hostage either because you could play around too, you could always find and kill her but it was an absurd gameplay feature, it had to go.
Something having counterplay and being weak doesnt mean it should be in the game if its just a boring hassle as big as that was, Pinhead sitting on the box spamming chain hunts to prolong a game for as much as he cans while doing absolutely nothing is absurd too, it should go.
That Claudette example does not hold up IMO. The tactical advantage of Blendette was using it to get the Killer off your tail. "Just find her" is not playing around the tactic.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3280735#Comment_3280735
That and we're also stating that this isn't a reportable offense because the game can progress by survivors working on the gens and just dodging the chains every so often.
I don't think anyone here LIKES it but by the letter of the rules, it's not taking the game hostage (and it shouldn't take a hour to do, you find your fellow survivors and have multiple people just hammer the same gen. Rinse and repeat. It'll take a little longer than usual but nowhere near "hostage taking" levels).
For what it's worth, going AFK is indeed a reportable offense.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277903#Comment_3277903
Read any number of other replies from those who have done programming in the last 30 years in this very thread. Heck, even the quote you replied to was in response to a great explanation.
Yeah, but I wanted your explanation.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277860#Comment_3277860
That's an absolutely great point. Even the use of the term "spaghetti code" is outdated, yet so many still use it to explain modern code that isn't even spaghetti at this point.
What makes it not spaghetti code?
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277433#Comment_3277433
compared to how it goes now, that would be the case. losing less strength means that their impact would be stronger on an individual level than it is now, kind of like the effect of the perks that amplify things based on number of dead teammates.
The idea is that if its supposed to be 1 : (.25) x4 in terms of impact, it would kind of shift like 1 : (.33) x 3, 1 : (.5) x2, etc. This of course only works if the entire scale of survivor numbers is properly balanced, so it would require baseline adjustments for how strong the normalized survivor strength is to the point where neither side is in clear advantage, so the baseline would be somewhere around where 3 survivors alive currently is (or more specifically somewhere around 3.25.)
But in the end, the idea is that the game would theoretically, at all points in time, avoid having efficiency cap related advantage in either direction.
Yeah, I could get behind that.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277421#Comment_3277421
Why not just take a normalization approach, and have survivors start weaker than they currently are, but lose less strength with each person down/out? The game is currently designed around lopsided advantage starting with survivors having the lead and killer gaining it as the match goes on, with both sides fighting over how fast the dynamic shift occurs in relation to their respective objectives being completed. 3 gens being done by the time the first survivor is hooked and 2 survivors being virtually unable to finish the 3 remaining gens are two halves of the same issue.
Could we make it so the Survivors grow stronger with each knockout instead?
-
Honestly, I feel like the game needs to be rebalanced so that it isn't a death sentence for the Survivors if you start losing Survivors before the last gen. Then we can rebalance the Killer accordingly and then make it so games aren't as likely to either be a curbstomp in either direction.
-
Dead by Daylight reminds me of the way the EDH format is managed in Magic the Gathering.
-
@scenekiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3273720#Comment_3273720
Ok, but here's the disconnect:
People in both roles intentionally load up stacked to the high heavens, with no regard to the fun of the other side. People who DC also do it with no regard to anyone's fun. It's the same mentality. Fun either matters or it doesn't - it can't be cherry-picked for one argument but not the other.
There are valid reasons for the DC penalty - "fun" is not one of them and never has been.
The problem with this view point to me is that stacking up to high heavens can be seen as fundamentally encouraged to try to score a win, which can be seen as fun in a certain way to people who strive to win (or to at least be in a dominant position). DCing is never a way to have fun for the user and can be seen as taking away fun from both friend and foe.
-
@Terion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3273224#Comment_3273224
i mean personally i find haddie 1000 times more appealing than vittorio. And its not because shes a woman and he is a man. But her cosmetics are kinda boring not gonna lie. Just recolors. (and for vittorio i just find sad how he has not a single medieval cosmetic going for him, while the knights iri cosmetic could straight out be a frozen knight or Game of thrones character.)
I'm willing to bet that he will get a medieval costume when they do a rift based on this chapter.
-
@StickyB said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3270253#Comment_3270253
I know consoles (well at least PS4) aren't a huge fan of changing achievements so I could see DBD struggling to make that change due to that reason
That is not necessarily true, to my understanding. They are willing to change an achievement if the game changes in such a way that it becomes literally impossible to complete. For example, they had to change the achievement where all four Survivors escape from the Hatch because the Hatch now no longer spawns when more than one person is left.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268708#Comment_3268708
100% but DbD is not an esport and doesn't have the market to be an esport. If it were an esport or becoming an esport were a viable business model I would change my mind. I could be mistaken about the model; it's not like I've carried out extensive market analysis but based on the reaction from esports players going to play DbD I don't think that's viable (but still just an opinion).
If being an esport is not a viable option, then DbD should balance for its strengths and not for something that's not a good course of action.
It doesn't have to be an esport to be viable for balancing around the good players, though.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268632#Comment_3268632
Which games are balancing around the top 1% that are actually fun and not esports? The asymmetrical nature complicates all balancing but if you can list some games that would help. I can think of some games where it didn't sink the game entirely but it wasn't fun for a lot of other players but I don't think that's what you're referring to.
Why do they have to not be "esports"? Games that are balanced and played at the tournament level can still be plenty fun for casuals.
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268559#Comment_3268559
But here is the thing, if one survivor isnt skilled then the game is lost for survivor team, because killer only has to rely on themselves, while survivors are a team. So if you balance around that top tier killer player vs top tier survivor team has about 50% winrate, that means all survivor has to be very good in order to stand a chance.
Not necessarily, because a Survivor team that is comprised of some better than Killer and some worse than Killer can balance out accordingly if you actually TRY to balance.
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268559#Comment_3268559
It kind of sounds like you want to emphasize the best balance over fun which is another reason that balancing for the top 1% kills games. If people aren't having fun why should they play or buy things for a game they don't enjoy? Very imbalanced is, of course, another way to kill a game but balance is a tool used to achieve fun. If the choice is better balance or more fun then balance is the subordinate goal and fun is the endgoal.
Why do most other games that balance around the good players not have this problem of being not fun? Balancing for the top is a common way to balance that is reliable and can lead to satisfying gameplay. Why is DBD exempt from this philosophy?
-
@Krazzik said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268366#Comment_3268366
I mean that's exactly what it means. Balancing killers around the top 1% means making all killers able to hold their own and do well reliably against good 4-man SWFs. This in turn means that anyone he isn't a good 4-man SWF gets rolled.
No it doesn't. It means that games are more likely to be determined by which side is more skilled. Also, I'm not arguing "balance killers among the top 1% of Survivors." I'm arguing "balance the game among the top 1% of players." The goal is not "make sure Killers can consistently win against the best Survivors." It's "make sure the best players can win regardless of which side they are on." Note how I am not referring to a specific side, unlike you.
@Killmaster said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268352#Comment_3268352
From a purely logical standpoint the only way to balance the game is if 4 survivor's working perfectly together win 100% of the time, any other metric skews too heavily in the killers favor, it's either only SWF wins every game or Killer wins every game against solo & SWF.
That doesn't make any sense. When players are of roughly equal skill, the win rates between them SHOULD be close to 50/50, which some minor variations between killers (since all Survivors play identically). Obviously perfect balance is not achievable, but doesn't mean we can strive to get close to that.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268417#Comment_3268417
I just edited the post instead of double posting. I think the edit clarifies my position a bit more if you'd like to see why.
To me, it seems like your primary position is that you think the game being balanced at the top is the #1 contributing factor in the game failing, when other people are suggesting a host of other factors.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268373#Comment_3268373
I disagree. None of that would have mattered in the long run if Monster had been fun and the skill floor difference between Monster and Teen hadn't been so staggeringly different. VHS had over 6,000 concurrent players on Steam when EA took place to a peak of 140 concurrent players as of yesterday.
If Monster and especially new player Monster had been a better experience as was said so many times in closed beta they would have stuck around and Teens wouldn't have had 20+ minute queues followed by any new Teens only meeting the sweatiest Monsters (who were the only ones left) which cratered the numbers on the Teen side.
It was the balancing around the top 1% and only really listening to a group of 50 people that sunk it.
You seem to me like you are pretty set in your belief. That's fine, but do try to keep an open mind to alternate theories as well.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268352#Comment_3268352
I concur. Killers shouldn't be balanced around the performance of the very top and neither should Survivors. Doing so is unfair to the players and saps enjoyment out of the role.
That's not what I said. I'm saying people seem to think for some reason that balancing around the top means making the game heavily unbalanced outside of the top level.
-
Always confuses me when people act like balancing around the top means making it so Killer always wins except against the very best Survivors.
-
Miss Trunchbull from Matilda is ripe Killer material.
-
As long as shirtless Clown is not in the game, the game will never havd enough sex appeal.
-
Set A was scientifically and mathematically better.
-
The solution to this IMO is to weaponize the AFK crows. If the gamd runs too long without progress, start ratting out Survivors.
-
The ultimate counter is to lose?
-
Let him supernaturally pull Traps from a distance to him once he's out so he doesn't have to walk all the way to them.
-
@lemonsway said:
You want to know the real reason DC penalties exist?
BECAUSE PEOPLE GIVE UP TOO OFTEN. Because it's a reoccurant thing.
So why do people give up?
Easy to explain. Wether you do plenty or little in a match doesn't matter, wether you do good or bad doesn't matter. You go 0 Pips or 2 Pips? Doesn't matter.
Doing gens, rescues, heals, boons, totems, chases, kicking things, hitting survivors, using your power, getting hooks, THEY DON'T MATTER.
Unless these actions are DIRECTLY TRANSLATED into ESCAPES or KILLS then they don't matter. Only the end result matters.
IF EFFORT DOESN'T MATTER then obviously the SKILL LEVEL IS LOW because nobody will in their right mind sweat for a match where it doesn't matter. ONly the Competitive Mindset people will do so because getting the END RESULT IS THE ONLY SHOW OF SKILL. However there's very UNSKILLFULL ways of achieving the END RESULT. BEcause the game allows such unskillfullness.
The Grade system is a GRIND system disguised as PARTICIPATION AWARD. You're getting Monthly BP just so you keep GRINDING SOME MORE.
The GAME IS CASUAL BECAUSE IT'S A GRIND FEST and the GAME DOES NOT REWARD SKILL IN ANY WAY. This means the skill level will be really low in the majority of players as proven by MMR statistics and the statistics from kill rates and pick rates for example showcase that too, the game is CASUAL BECAUSE THERE'S NO REWARDS TO INCENTIVIZE ANYTHING OR ANYONE TO GET BETTER.
For example, Mastering a Killer doesn't really mean much when you can you will be facing low skill opponents for most of the time. Learn them all, play them all, that's the objective, wether you do good or not doesn't matter. It's not a bad message but you're putting PLAYERS VS PLAYERS, things have to make sense and have meaning so that skill can be determined but most things in DbD don't make sense. You can't be a Casual grind game when you're also a PvP game. You either reward skill or perpetual playing. You can't do both.
So what do Casual and low Skill players do? They give up, and they do that alot. And it's because they give up alot that DC penalties exist.
DC penalties is nothing but a band aid that punishes players who aren't really at fault because wether they play or not, wether they do well or not, there's no reward. SO THEM DC'ING OR NOT WILL END UP IN WIELDING THE SAME END RESULT THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME.
The only "reward" is YOU PLAYED. When your game is satisfied by simply having people playing it without any real reason or goal then people won't care if they play or not. IF people don't care then they DC, if too manny people star to DC then you gotta change that so you punish them for DC'ing when it makes no sense.
"You want to know the real reason DC penalties exist?
BECAUSE PEOPLE GIVE UP TOO OFTEN. Because it's a reoccurant thing.
So why do people give up? Because people can be sore losers."
There, I just saved you a lot of space.
-
@Norhc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/352002/pig-is-the-weakest-killer-in-dbd
Pig currently is the strongest she has ever been. Stop coping and get good.
That doesn't mean much when the strongest she has ever been is still pretty weak. :P
-
@The_Krapper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3241399#Comment_3241399
Lmao at least I held up my end of it
At least now, you can say that you totally crushed OP and they can't fight back against it. ;)
-
@Okonar_ said:
9 comment pages of people falling for a bait, come on guys...
Is it really "falling for bait" if we already knew this to be a troll?
-
@BringShaggytoDBD said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3240681#Comment_3240681
I know I have the unpopular here, but from my own experience I am so much better with Pig than Billy since his nerf.
Stealth goes a long way for me, and combine that with Pig's traps she's pretty strong when used correctly. She was the first killer I ever played and mained tbf, so I'm a little biased.
Also using Billy's chainsaw on console is a drag.
Sorry not Sorry 🥸
What exactly is "used correctly?" We all know that Traps are meant to be used to stall out and ambushes are meant to be used at loops. What else is there?
-
@lemonsway said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3239277#Comment_3239277
A DC Ban without context is meaningless. Other players will never really know why someone DC's. There's plenty of game realted, non player related and external situations that cause DC's.
But the matter of the fact is that DC penalties will punish you regardless of the reason why the DC happens.
IF you DC because you're being held hostage, by cheaters or someone grieving you, you will be the one to get punished and nobody will remove that DC penalty from you when you were the one on the receiving end of something bad. Tough luck, here's a penalty for you...
That's why the penalty starts small. So people who have a FAIR reason to leave (glitch, IRL emergency, etc.) aren't really punished, and the penalty only hits repeat offenders.
-
@lemonsway said:
watch this DC RUIN THIS GAME!
Claudette gives up right away because SKILL ISSUES. And the 3 of us do 5 gens, break Pentimento, do multiple rescues and heals and ESCAPE.
NOW TELL ME DC'S RUIN MATCHES.
DCs ruin matches. One screencap with no context means nothing.
-
@Babadook83 said:
these bans are way too harsh. funny how they think a dc'er is almost as bad as a hacker
DC penalties should be harsh against someone who frequently DCs.
-
@Dennis_van_eijk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3238423#Comment_3238423
Yeah but he just wants to argue despite you are right, it just doesn't matter to them if you're right or wrong 😂
Let the guilty rationalize their guilt.
-
@Dennis_van_eijk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3238414#Comment_3238414
I'll answer for him 😜
That's not a valid reason 😂
Of course it is. It is THE reason.
-
@lemonsway said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237935#Comment_3237935
Ofc you didn't read it all, you and 99% of the people don't read things at all, that's precisely why people keep advocating for something without even understanding what they're advocating for or why they're advocating for it.
I do play other games, i have plenty to play.
My problem is the game punishes people for a choice that they are free to make in a game that is unfair by design. It's rubbing salt on an open wound for no reason.
Cross-play already exists and the game is on 6 or 7 platforms now and Queue times are horrible and without crossplay on then finding amatch takes forever so why why keep even more people away from matchmaking? Keeping people away from matchmaking only makes matchmaking take longer and then the games will be even more UNBALANCED AND UNFAIR leading to more frustration and more people willing to DC and then it's on repeat with even longer queues and even more unfair matches.
There's LITERALLY NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER TO DC PENALTIES. Plus it's a casual game, it's doesn't even have a ranked mode. MMR means absolutly nothing and Grades is just for BP rewards. So there's isn't even a "competitive" reason to have DC penalties.
Plus Cheaters don't get DC penalties but they can force the decision on other players to DC or stay in a match till the server finally wakes up and goes... "hold on this is going on for 2 hours!? bruh turn it off". This is what the servers do!
People are defending DC penalties like they do something good when they don't, they never did and never will.
The benefit to DC penalties is that it delays someone who ruins the game from getting to play again.
-
@CoDismylife said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237715#Comment_3237715
Not even seen a single match and already under suspicion of being a cheater. This forum is something else I swear
The person above you is requesting your steam tag. Please provide it to them.
-
@BendIt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237575#Comment_3237575
Okay so a web ticket has to be logged and from the ingame report and from the date and time reported of the match on the web ticket a team has to find that match and then identify the player, that sounds like a lot of work for those poor guys (and a smaller amount for the player reporting) but possible to do.
I will continue to refuse to play with anonymous players though, as I feel safer knowing hackers are more likely to do use this.
To be honest, we shouldn't have to be reporting hacking as the dbd servers should be able to detect hacking as servers will be able to monitor if we are flying in the air / not trapped after passing over a trap. DBD needs to focus less on the old client anticheat as the client games are easily compromised.
Thanks for your time
At this point, you are at fault more than anyone else for being uncooperative.
-
Does anyone have any refined metal? Willing to trade a Stout Shako for it.
Anyways, this is only barely better than the For Honor thing. BOOOOOOO. (and not the ghost kind)
-
Boomstick
Can only spawn in chest once per trial.
Has one bullet (gun breaks after use, so no Built to Last shenanigans).
Can be used to stun the killer.
Pallet auto-breaks if shot at.
Shooter is exposed for the remainder of the trial.
Carried Survivor will go back into the dying state if the Killer is shot while holding someone.
Gun jams if fired after the exit gates are powered.
-
@Raccoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3235456#Comment_3235456
I believe the person that originally called you out has committed account sudoku in one of my recent topics - Guess they really didn't want to play @_@
OP: "Just according to keikaku."
(TRANSLATOR'S NOTE: keikaku means plan)
-
The only part of the Pig changes that seems off to me is being able to break the pallets with the dash because Amanda is teeny tiny. I think it'd make more sense if she could jump the pallet with the dash instead. Beyond that, his Pig changes seem fine to me.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237748#Comment_3237748
It's like no one can read...
I'll put it in caps might help you see better
I KNOW BHVR WORK ON OTHER GAMES AND HAVE MADE OTHER GAMES.
I just dont want another death garden situation where it's a complete flop. So yeah I'd rather them use most of their company on DBD and only work on smaller projects on the side... or grow bigger so they can handle big demanding developments along side DBD.
Do yourself a favour and read before you jump on the bandwagon of trying to say I dont know they work on other games jeez
It's not that you don't know that they work on other games. It's that you don't understand that what you are suggesting is not practical.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237688#Comment_3237688
You mean saying a company should focus on their own game, their biggest one which actually grew their company to what it is?
Did we just forget all the other non arcade game they tried to do along side DBD, another asymmetrical which had such a short life...
BHVR have had good games like naughty bear and even DBD but what actual game has been a success along side producing DBD? And they dont work all week so yes that's also a fact.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It lacks understanding on how the video game industry works.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237659#Comment_3237659
Yes I know, i played games like naughty bear but my point still stands.
DBD is an active game, the others arent and some even mega flopped and could barely last.
When their biggest game cant have a teams to rotate the week it's not good.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237660#Comment_3237660
Yeah last big game they tried to push with DBD failed rather fast, I cant even think of the name it latest so little it was another 4v1. Point being is they should focus on one game.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3237665#Comment_3237665
Just stating facts I dunno what to say
The definition of "facts" is not "my personal biases based on lack of understanding" Not sure where you're getting that from.
-
@Little_Kitten said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3235192#Comment_3235192
"Why modify a killer when all the survivors would have to do is learn to play against it."
Both can be true.
-
New Killer: Jason Voorhees
One week only! After that, we start deleting characters you already paid for!
-
@CoDismylife said:
I'm at work what you talking? I said weekend we do it let's go. Where am I dodging???
You're pushing it off. A true player wouldn't wait until people have forgotten.
-
Does Nurse need to be changed? Probably, yes. Are people who ragequit against the Nurse on principle still the problem? 100%.