TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Faulds said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2750228#Comment_2750228
Yeah, and being able to down the unhooker and the rescued survivor in seconds (if there is no BT) is totally fine...
Irrevelant to the point I was making.
-
@Sepex said:
Is this the final tome?
Nope. After that, we will get Tome X2 - 6, then Tome Zero through Zero 4, X7, X8, Command Mission, ZX, ZX2. Don't forget Battle Network and Starforce.
-
@Faulds said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/305140/make-pop-and-bt-basekit
I don't think you'd need to change BT to make it basekit. It has an easy counter: waiting twelve seconds if the survivor bodyblock and try to be a smartass... people forget that it can backfire quickly.
About Pop, i think making corrupt basekit OR increasing the gen speed regression is a much better idea to deal with gen speed.
So the counter to BT is to give them enough time to make it to the Exit Gate?
-
@drakolyr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2750204#Comment_2750204
Exactly, they wait at the exit gate, ignore the one on hook and get forced leave.
While this person on the hook now has the chance to go away if this happens. But the game forces you out with instant killing you - and it doesnt skip that much, you still need to see the animations as a survivor.
I just think, whats the matter?
If its that easy to hook again, then it doesnt matter for the killer. - Otherwise i just think some fear that they dont get their free kill.
If its that frustrating for the survivor getting insta downed again - then some will not do it anyway and just die.
But give the people a chance who want too.
"If its that easy to hook again, then it doesnt matter for the killer"
Sure it does. It'd be a pointless waste of time almost every time.
-
Disable BT after the Gates are powered, not after the EGC. Otherwise, 99ing the gates effectively negates that downside.
-
Because that thing you said about Jeff having all those extra chance perks is very unlikely to matter to the point where it is not worth pointlessly extending the game.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2748340#Comment_2748340
Gen repair speed decreases as long as the Killer is chasing or carrying someone while someone else is hooked
Actually not a bad idea, as it applies pressure & encourages Killers to find more targets, instead of a weak punishment Survivors can abuse.
Gen repair speed increases as long as the Killer is not doing that while someone is hooked.
So, until the Killer FINDS someone; Survivors get a bonus to gen repair speeds. This would massively punish low-mobility Killers.
And that's on top of skillchecks & toolkits & BNPs. On top of that; this encourages Survivors to avoid the Killer & NOT rescue someone, as they are getting a repair bonus.
Just gotta create a buffer time before the penalty kicks in, similar to how there's a buffer time before the Killer's emblem score starts getting penalized for being too close to the hook. Also create a buffer time between when the Killer downs someone and when they pick up someone.
-
Gen repair speed decreases as long as the Killer is chasing or carrying someone while someone else is hooked. Gen repair speed increases as long as the Killer is not doing that while someone is hooked.
Killer is rewarded for hunting other Survivors after hooking someone but punished for camping, and Survivors are incentivized to rescue someone in the meantime.
This is mostly just an idea off the top of my head.
-
@Extremes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2745398#Comment_2745398
I don't disagree that bubba is a disgusting killer if played in the same manner.
Sounds more like a camping issue than anything.
-
@Extremes said:
To clarify, for those that do not seem to understand my point of view. I understand the clown's iridescent add-on is fun to use a killer, but it makes the game unplayable by survivors. Fun should exist as both killer and survivor within the same game at different points in the game. This add-on completely kills any fun a survivor has during this match. Games should not be one sided like this, which is why I think removing it and buffing the base kit of clown to where he is a bit stronger naturally would be healthy. Of course, any adjustments needed to be made to his other add-ons can be included with the buff.
I also understand survivors have it really good, specially in SWF groups. This is something that I wouldn't mind if it got affected because I normally play solo survivor, and on the rare occasion I play with friends in red ranks, we don't sweat by bullying the killers we face. I understand boons are nuts, I wouldn't mind seeing those be nerfed, and while DH,DS,BT,UB are all annoying, you can play around them. I've played killer in red ranks for plenty of resets through out my ~900 hrs played, and while I may run into a group with 4 deadhards often, the same cannot be said for the other perks. Sure, you may encounter SWF groups with the exact same builds, but they do not exist in your every lobby, and in the rare scenario that you do come across a SWF with these perks, you will need to learn to play around their build.
DH - probably the most annoying one of the 4 from what I've experienced and have seen people experience. Don't swing early, and if they use it to reach the next tile safely, take a look at the current state of the game and decide whether or not it is a wise choice to continue chasing the current survivor.
BT - Don't tunnel whoever just got unhooked. It's not that hard man. You can juggle 2 survivors and not chase anybody else and win most games if you are competent and understand how to balance chases and gen-pressuring as a killer. Once you take 2 survivors out, 95% of the time the game is over if there is a 3 gen situation or more than 2 gens that need completion.
DS - Same as above. DS has been nerfed, leaving a survivor as useful as tits on a man if they choose to run around to save their DS in case they get chased. If they force themselves on you, slug them, which also renders them useless.
UB - Don't slug everybody. 4 man slugging is greedy. Yes, sometimes it can be seen as the correct play, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a greedy play and can backfire. If you slugged one player and they UB, who cares? He was useless for a good amount of time, that hopefully you took advantage of.
Before you all come all Hot Wheels on my ass with the flame, understand that this is not me defending survivors. This is me giving you killer players some advice on how to deal with this build that everybody considers so toxic while we wait to see if BHVR ever nerfs them. My point is also to show that you at least have choices as a killer when it comes to facing these builds. Facing a clown with an iridescent add-on leaves you no choice but to spread for him while he finishes, or disconnect.
IMO Pinky Finger Clown is not that much different from plain 'ol Bubba.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2744703#Comment_2744703
Would you be okay if they replaced the masks with four new torso cosmetics that resemble the clothes of the 4 original survivors?
I woudn't care, but I strongly doubt the IP holders would sign off on it.
-
"The key for the reverse bear-trap now has a 10% chance of being in the first searched box."
Can we go down to 0% chance? I'd rather not turn RBTs into a kobe-type deal where there's a small chance of the Pig randomly being screwed.
-
@Tr1nity said:
One to say:
Hey Jane, I’m one death hook and injured, you haven’t even been hit once this whole game, can you stop hiding behind a pillar and take a hit please?
Not sure the devs would be okay with the middle finger as an icon.
-
I think the devs, above all else, need to establish HOW they want each side to win/lose and then balance around that.
-
I'd put a cooldown on being able to relight a Boon that increases every time the one you lit is snuffed. If that means buffing any of the other Boon perks as compensation, so be it.
-
I can't think of a Mortal Kombat character that wouldn't feel out of place getting outrun by a random person or getting stunned by a pallet.
-
The type of bloodpoint offering will not cause me to alter my play style, as I am not in need of bloodpoints.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2740024#Comment_2740024
We can agree to disagree on that but as far as I'm concerned, 2 survivors escaping is a win and killing 2 survivors is simultaneously a win. If someone has to lose, it's the 2 survivors who died but I don't think it has to be a matter of one side dominating the other to count as a win
There are two teams. Both teams cannot simultaneously win by varying amounts. A team either wins, loses, or draws. I don't think there's such a thing as an in-between.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2740015#Comment_2740015
Also to correct your earlier statement: A win-win is not a draw.
A draw is a situation where NO ONE wins. If you play tic tac toe, and the game ends in a draw, it means that no one was able to win the game. Same for chess. A draw does not = win win. Draw = no winner
If there are equal numbers of escapees and deaths, neither side came out on top. That's just a draw. In order for there to be a winner, one side has to have emerged victorious over the other.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739986#Comment_2739986
Subgenres exist though so a PvP game like Street Fighter or Apex where there can only be one winner can't be designed in the same way as an asymmetric PvP game that has varying win conditions for the 2 different sides.
There's no way to fairly design an asymmetric game in which the survivors always win because then the killers won't play. And likewise, there is no way to fairly design an asymmetric game in which the killer always when because then the survivors simply won't play. There has to be a middle ground in asymmetric PvP games
Yeah, and the middle ground is "each side wins roughly about as often as they lose."
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739976#Comment_2739976
So why would that be a game design or balance issue? Both sides (theoretically) should walk away satisfied with a game that ends that way.
Why should the be designed so that most survivors die or most survivors live in place of a 2-2 system?
PvP games are generally designed to have definitive winners and losers. They're not generally designed to primarily end in ties.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739965#Comment_2739965
The issue I have with that statement (and maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying) is that I don't believe that getting 2 kills and having 2 survivors escape is considered a loss for the killer. I think that's a win for the killer as well as a win for survivors and I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive if that makes sense
"I think that's a win for the killer as well as a win for survivors"
That's called a draw.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739824#Comment_2739824
Well he's talking about purely from a game mechanic standpoint. In actuality the game isn't as balanced as it seems. Also most everybody on the forums believe the game is survivor sided which according to this tweet Otz himself doesn't believe.
I do admit I probably worded the title a bit badly. I meant it more as "not as survivor sided as it seems" than straight up killer sided.
A less clickbaity title would probably go a long way. :P
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739904#Comment_2739904
I made a clarification comment above immediately after posting because I knew someone was gonna say something about that. It's like.... 2 comments above yours
That's still not necessarily true. All it really means is that you should be winning about as often as you are losing. If the vast majority of games are a draw, something has gone wrong with the game design/balance.
-
"true BALANCE would mean an average of 2k/2 escapes meaning that in reality, killers should pretty much be barely killing that 2nd person and maybe be working towards a 3rd"
That's not how averages work. :P
-
@SuzuKR said:
This sort of post is why people view the forums as a joke
To be fair, it could also be an intentional attempt at baiting forum users.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739300#Comment_2739300
So if you are a good killer and you sweat you'll win most times with no perks? That's still very killer sided.
Incorrect. :P
-
@Norhc said:
Those aren't meme addons. Especially Vanity.
Scratched Mirror is only usable on fully indoor maps (of which there are currently only four: Lehry's, The Game, Midwich, and RCPD) and is trash outside it. It is very much a meme.
Vanity could be a different story, but I haven't really looked into it and can't say whether the wallhacks is worth the loss of T3.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2737452#Comment_2737452
So SWFs can conspire and report every killer they don't like as "AFK" and therefore ban them? Like "let's all report every spirit and artist as AFK". I don't think it's how it works, otherwise the forum would be full of "why the hell I was banned" threads.
Devs don't ban without video evidence, of course.
-
@CyberDragoon656 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2737452#Comment_2737452
Yeah but how long will it be till all killers do this just cause of the broken system so far
Not my problem.
-
It's been confirmed that going AFK in too many games is a punishable offense if enough people report you for it (it has to be more than just one or two games, though).
-
@mynameisBlade said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735981#Comment_2735981
When DOUG BRADLEY says it...... OF COURSE IT IS!! I AM ECSTATIC.... The tone and everything is perfect...only because its the REAL DEAL. :D
Dammit. I should be disappointed by your response, but I can't poo poo your positivity or your joy.
-
They brought back the "I CAME" line! Isn't that great? :D
-
@Killbutton said:
Can we at least get Pinhead's "I Came" line back?
People are saying it's blackface and racism, when it was probably just a bunch of ######### teenagers being ######### teenagers.
Pinhead's "I came" is coming back in the next patch.
-
@Smurmph said:
Wouldn’t it be better to just unlock them for everyone? You still accomplish the same goal without taking away cool cosmetics.
What goal do you think is trying to be accompished here?
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735690#Comment_2735690
You're asking me to find you evidence that plastics hurt the environment more than NFTs...? Do you want an entire book of sources?
I want some form of evidence, yes.
-
@AnchorTea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735698#Comment_2735698
Maybe, but we will truly never know. Pinhead uses his actual VA now which could indicate legal issues. It could also be just a detail by BHVR.
I believe someone from BHVR confirmed that the original IP holder denied permission for the voice lines.
-
@AnchorTea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2734826#Comment_2734826
Boss Protocol stated on their discord that they have no control as to why the voice lines were removed.
I think it's more with regards to the fact that Hellraiser now has a different IP owner who okay'd the voice lines.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735452#Comment_2735452
I'm not denying that ETH isn't harmful for the environment, my point is that if you're not ok with NFTs but are ok with the toy industry making islands of plastic in the ocean then there is a problem.
You made the claim that NFTs were the less problematic of the two. Let's see your work.
-
Let's make this a bit eaiser:
Show the class your research demonstrating that NFTs are either more or less environmentally damaging than physical memorabilia.
-
It means that when you opened the box, he came.
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733908#Comment_2733908
I already explained this.
All I can say now is that you are wrong and I am right. Time to move on.
Your explanation is wrong on multiple levels, but sure. I'm cool with moving on.
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733797#Comment_2733797
The definition for "casual connectiong" is much more rigorous if you conducting data analysis for a research paper compared to using it in debate and I'm pretty sure you know this. Also, I will point out that you selected a blog of a professor who is specifically talking about research papers, for a college level class. This is pretty disingenuous, don't you think. You didn't choose a definition from a dictionary or a source specifically speaking about fallacies and debate.
Here a definition from a dictionary
If there is a causal connection between two things, one thing is responsible for causing the other.
---
But again, I'll point you to this college website I pointed out before that is specifically talking about a causal connection in context to slippery slope arguments.
---
There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another.
Again quoted from Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate (csun.edu)
You provided no reason why A will result in B. You simply claim that the mask getting removed means players will harass using some other cosmetic to get it removed. Hence, fallacy.
-
@throwaway79465468797 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733638#Comment_2733638
I just have to laugh to myself every time I read this... it reminds me of a time when someone learns a new word -- they have no clue how to use it, what context it applies to, or even cared to learn all they could about it. They just really liked saying that word.
If you wish to continue our conversation, post it in the other thread. Otherwise, I have nothing to discuss with you. ;)
-
@AshleyWB said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733795#Comment_2733795
So you're saying that nothing can be harmful if you choose to disagree with it.
Stereotyping and discrimination is harmful.
Where does it say that in the post you quoted?
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733718#Comment_2733718
I supplied it when I said...
Doesn't it make it pretty obvious that you can get a group of people together and start harassing other people and get noticed.
When I made this statement, I supplied a plausible reason why the consequence of banning "Smart Face" could lead to...
What's to stopping a group of people choosing Bubba and only killing Claudette's and Adam's while letting all the other characters go. You're not stopping a behavior by doing this, you're making it rewarding.
Hence, a slippery slope argument instead of a slippery slope fallacy.
---
There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another.
Again quoted from Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate (csun.edu)
"If they ban Smart Face, then people will start harassing using different cosmetics, then others will get removed, then they'll harass even more with other cosmetics" is a slippery slope fallacy.
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733682#Comment_2733682
A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies
Quoted from Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate (csun.edu)
That's actually incorrect, but even if it was correct, in your case, you showed no connection, so in your case it is very much a fallacy. :P
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733638#Comment_2733638
There's actually a difference between a slippery slope argument and a slippery slope fallacy. A slippery slope argument is an argument in which one action could logically lead to a new unforeseen consequence.
A slippery slope fallacy is where one action could lead to something extreme or ludicrous. So basically, a slippery slope fallacy example would be, if you get rid of smart face, what is stopping everyone from only killing Claudettes, Adams and Elodies.
The definition of the slippery slope fallacy and argument are the same. The slippery slope argument is a type of logical fallacy:
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733354#Comment_2733354
Doesn't it make it pretty obvious that you can get a group of people together and start harassing other people and get noticed.
What's to stopping a group of people choosing Bubba and only killing Claudette's and Adam's while letting all the other characters go. You're not stopping a behavior by doing this, you're making it rewarding.
As mentioned in another thread, this is referred to as the "slippery slope fallacy."
-
@Lochnload_exe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733437#Comment_2733437
That's the thing! Clive Barker, original creator of Hellraiser, as of December 29th, 2021 is now the official license owner of Hellraiser. Pinhead isn't the NFT guy anymore, he is the creator and amazing work of art from Clive Barker.
You think this might be why Pinhead suddenly has his voice back?