TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652564#Comment_2652564
It's not wrong if they are not being honest.
Correct, but you have not and cannot prove that to be the case.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652551#Comment_2652551
My original claim was my belief we don't have an issue (based on what I've seen and my opinion on virtue signallers).
I am aware, and that belief is demonstrated to be wrong based on the comments in this thread showing people having an issue.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652543#Comment_2652543
I can believe they are without proof.
You're allowed to do that, but it doesn't matter whether you do or not. The fact that they have made those issues and concerns known actively demonstrates your original claim wrong.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652533#Comment_2652533
I don't believe them. I think they are using NFTs as an excuse to bash the devs. I know some have done exactly that.
Unless you can prove that the people in this thread have been faking it, it doesn't matter if you believe them or not.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652526#Comment_2652526
I was interpreting it differently (and also I don't believe virtue signallers).
Well, then you interpreted it incorrectly. The people in this thread have been demonstrating their issues and voicing their concerns.
-
It is.
Synonyms for issue from Thesaurus.com, the world’s leading online source for synonyms, antonyms, and more."Concern" is listed as a synonym of "Issue." Therefore, to voice a concern is the same as to voice an issue.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652504#Comment_2652504
Voicing concerns doesn't mean "we have an issue".
That is exactly what it means.
-
I mean, that is generally how it works. Standing by an incorrect statement doesn't make it less incorrect. The reality is that there are multiple comments in this thread voicing their issues with NFTs, standing in direct contradiction with your original claim. You choosing not to believe them and standing by that incorrect statement does not change or remove those comments.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652487#Comment_2652487
If you say so. I disagree.
Disagreeing doesn't make your incorrect statement less incorrect. It just means that, as you said earlier, you stand by that incorrect statement.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652481#Comment_2652481
And I believe my statement is correct. I don't believe anyone claiming to truly have an issue with NFTs on here. I know some people who claimed to but were just virtue signalling. Therefore I am 100% confident we don't have an issue with them.
You're also allowed to be 100% confident in an incorrect statement, but your statement about people's stances on NFTs will still continue to be incorrect, as I stated previously.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652469#Comment_2652469
I stand by what I said
You're allowed to stand by an incorrect statement, but the statement continues to be incorrect, with the correct statement being that people in this thread have stated their issues with NFTs.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652461#Comment_2652461
I meant if you claim to have an issue. You or anyone. I won't believe it.
Then that means you've demonstrated yourself to be an unreliable source and thus your claims can be safely discarded. As such, your original claim regarding people here having no issues with NFTs continues to be objectively incorrect.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652455#Comment_2652455
No but I won't believe you if you claim you do. Because of what I know.
Why would I claim to have proof that we don't have an issue?
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652444#Comment_2652444
I never said I have proof of all. I stand by what I said, and that I don't believe anyone saying they do.
Do you have proof that we all in this thread collectively don't have an issue?
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652437#Comment_2652437
I have proof that some people on the forum are falsely claiming to have an issue. Conversely I have not seen anything that proves anyone genuinely does (writing you do in a forum does not make it so).
I stand by what I said.
Your original statement in this thread was not that some people on the forum are falsely claiming to have an issue. Your original statement was that we don't have an issue. Do you have proof of that?
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652431#Comment_2652431
I have proof of my original statement. I just choose not to share it, because I wish to protect them. If that makes the first statement invalid, or if you don't believe me so be it.
Oh, you have proof that no one in this thread has issue with NFTS?
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652425#Comment_2652425
You do you. I will stick to what I said. You stick to what you said. I am not going to name people, and if that makes me statement invalid so be it.
Agree that we have differing views here and end it there. Respectfully like adults.
If one person says that the moon is made potatoes and spaghetti and one person says that the moon is not, then one of those views is objectively wrong because both views cannot be correct at the same time. Differing views does not mean that there isn't an objectively correct answer. It just means that one of those views is objectively wrong. In this case, it is your view that is wrong and cannot be demonstrably proven.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652414#Comment_2652414
And since I choose protecting people over winning a silly argument, then you can claim what you wish.
I stand by what I said. That's it.
Your original claim of "We don't" is objectively wrong unless you can prove otherwise.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652406#Comment_2652406
Why should I? If choosing not to name and shame people means you don't believe me so be it. Shame of you for wanting that for the sake of winning an argument.
Until you can demonstrate it to be true, then your claim is not valid. Simple at that. Another user on here had no problem posting names of users.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652401#Comment_2652401
Like I said. I know people who have stated they are quitting and haven't.
Okay, show me the people saying that they are quitting and then show me that they haven't.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652394#Comment_2652394
Not hypothetical.
Okay, so demonstrate it to be true.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652385#Comment_2652385
I have just provided one example of why I have good reason to question this.
You provided a hypothetical scenario. I provided a question regarding that hypothetical scenario.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652381#Comment_2652381
OK, Judge Judy. One example. Just one. If someone says "NFTs are awful, I'm stopping playing I'm so outraged".... and they carry on plugging away for hours on the game a day. I believe it is fair to question the integrity of their outrage.
Like I said. Just one example.
What about the people who actually do stop playing?
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652370#Comment_2652370
I think you are under the mistaken impression this is a court 😅😂😂. "Burden of proof". Turn it in Cho 😂😂.
You believe them and I dont. Let's just leave it at that eh.
Burden of proof is a basic concept of argument. If you cannot demonstrate that the claim you are making is true, then the claim cannot be taken seriously. So you either demonstrate that the people stating to have issue are pretending as per your claim, or your original post that "we don't" is wrong.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652358#Comment_2652358
Until you can prove they are telling the truth my statement stands.
Not how burden of proof works. You made the claim first that they are pretending to have an issue. Therefore, it is on you to prove that this statement is true.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652353#Comment_2652353
But my observation is not objectively wrong if the people saying they have an issue don't really have an issue.
Until you can objectively prove that they are lying (not that they are incorrect in their belief, but that they are LYING), then your observation is wrong.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652335#Comment_2652335
You are choosing to believe the people saying they have an issue. I have many reasons why I am 100% confident they are not being honest.
Therefore my comment that we don't have a problem stands. I just simply don't believe anyone who is saying they do.
Not sure why what I said bothers you so much.
I never said whether or not I have an issue with NFTs in this thread. I merely called out your objectively wrong observation.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652328#Comment_2652328
If I said the moon is made of potatoes and spaghetti, and someone claimed it wasn't. Would that mean they are wrong to challenge me just because I said it?
I rest my case.
People are pretending to have an issue when they don't.
"If I said the moon is made of potatoes and spaghetti, and someone claimed it wasn't. Would that mean they are wrong to challenge me just because I said it?"
No, they would be very much correct in challenging you. Much like how I am challenging your incorrect claim that we don't have an issue. Cool, glad to know that you agree with me.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652313#Comment_2652313
And I'm saying that I just don't buy the reasons people give for "having a problem with it". Just people using it as an excuse to rail against the devs and pretending to take the moral high ground.
Therefore I stand by my statement.
You actively stated "We don't." That is objectively incorrect based on the people in this thread who very clearly do.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652310#Comment_2652310
....without stating why it was false. Says it all.
Fair. It is demonstrably false because there are people in this very thread who do have issue with NFTs, which actively contradicts your claim that we don't have issue.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2652292#Comment_2652292
I'm sure you're going full out to fight against it, and not just making noise on a forum.
This is a non-sequitur. All I said was that your claim that "we don't have an issue with NFTs" is objectively and demonstrably false.
-
@DangerScouse said:
We don't. Just a few people on here playing the hero "I'll stop playing"... yawn yawn. Virtue signal yawn yawn. So don't worry.
"We don't."
Objectively and demonstrably false.
-
I think the only thing Pop could use is reverting the timer back to 60 seconds. I think everything else about it is fine.
-
Bobby Kotick: What are these "blood points" you speak of, and how many of them do I need to give away to get myseld out of my current situation?
-
Random idea off the top of my head: A Survivor with Hemorrhage will, in addition to bleeding heavily while injured, bleed at normal rate and still do injured grunts as though they are still injured while not injured for X amount of time. Makes them more susceptible to being spotted after being healed back to full (barring Iron Will).
-
@Beaburd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2651111#Comment_2651111
Maybe, but how many personalized builds would actually be affected by this?
Take a look at my list of proposed linked-perks for each survivor:
- Dwight - Bond
- Meg - Adrenaline
- Claudette - Self Care
- Jake - Saboteur
- Nea - Streetwise
- Laurie - Decisive Strike
- Ace - Ace in the Hole
- Bill - Unbreakable
- Min - Alert
- David - Dead Hard
- Quentin - Vigil
- David - Stakeout
- Kate - Boil Over
- Adam - Autodidact
- Jeff - Distortion
- Jane - Solidarity
- Ash - Mettle of Man
- Nancy - None (license expired, perks are general pool)
- Steve - None (see above)
- Yui - Breakout
- Zarina - Off the Record
- Cheryl - Repressed Alliance
- Felix - Built to Last
- Elodie - Power Struggle
- Yun-Jin - Self Preservation
- Jill - Blast Mine
- Leon - Rookie Spirit
- Mikaela - Boon: Circle of Healing
- Jonah - Boon: Exponential
Now a lot of these perks are weaker than some others currently for sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to briefly remind anyone reading this that we'd theoretically buff them all to be relatively equal in worth and appeal before going further (which is a great excuse to make a pass on some of the weaker perks anyway).
The main point I wanted to make is:
How many of these perks actually have synergy with each other to the point that more than one is likely to be put into a single build at a time? Aside from the meta perks (Decisive Strike and Dead Hard), which are used together not for personalization or synergy, but because they're just independently strong. In that way, I don't think this change would affect many people.
That said, I don't want to entirely ignore those who run unique builds such as Self Preservation + Breakout + Rookie Spirit + Mettle of Man because they like to, regardless of how rare they are.
In these cases perhaps weaker versions of the linked perk could be transferable, but at a significant penalty. For example you could still use Dead Hard on Laurie under this system to maintain the DS + DH + BT combo, but DH is weaker than if David used it. If Dead Hard were linked to David as it is now, Laurie using it would incur a double cooldown penalty (120s, reset entirely on hook still) to discourage multiple strong perks from being used together.
Diversity is encouraged, builds are preserved to a degree, and the grind is still reduced by half individually and yet still made optional through the encouragement of leveling multiple characters for their unique empowered core perks.
Probably a lot? It's less about the number of builds affected and more about the number of people affected.
I am of the belief that it is far too late too do anything to differentiate Survivors from each other mechanically by even a little. It is something that should have been built into the foundation of the game from the start (or close to it).
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2651091#Comment_2651091
Logic doesn't ALWAYS work. Why does a Legion add on destroy a pallet by vaulting it?
Because the Iridescent Button was molded by the Entity and thus has highly supernatural powers. :P
-
@Beaburd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2651090#Comment_2651090
Yeah, I tried suggesting it way back in 2016 and even a few years inbetween then and now.
The argument back then was primarily "everyone would just use Claudette for her stealth and Self Care" or "Everyone would just use Meg for Sprint Burst" and so on, before they were nerfed.
---
That said, even though we're definitely at a point where if this was introduced there would be backlash because no one can pile on all their favorite meta perks anymore, I still want to see an innovative solution like this. I think the backlash could also be mitigated somewhat though by fact that not all survivors have amazing meta-level perks and require buffs.
Like, what perk from Ace or Dwight can compete with Laurie's DS or David's DH? None of them really.
So the only solution to these key meta perks being restricted would be buffing Ace and Dwights linked perk (whatever it is) to be pretty dang powerful to make up for the fact they won't have access to DS or DH. Maybe a Bond with infinite range that can pierce blindness? Ace in the Hole that can get rare and stupidly good add-ons, like a key that reveals the hatch once x gens are done regardless of how many survivors are left?
Maybe these examples are too strong, but the idea is that these survivor-specific restrictions could enable the implementation of some really nifty and strong perks. And that is something I think even people irritated with this change might come around to.
Not to mention all of a sudden this opens doors to make otherwise lacking perks have value. Plunderer's Instinct on Ace for example might start looking real tempting.
Buffing is not an acceptable mitigation IMO. It's not just about making sure your character has meta perks. It's about making sure that your character has the build you actually want. This solution would still very much result in A LOT of time spent personalizing the character's build being flushed down the toilet.
-
@Beaburd said:
I do think meta perks need to be restricted (if not nerfed) to increase build variety. I would take different a route for this instead though.
Currently it costs about 1 mil BP to get to lvl 37, then another 1 mil to get to 50 or so.
Then it's ~60k per bloodweb at lvl 50+, and you get two perks per web with 303 possible perks for survivors and 270 for killers in the game at the moment. It probably literally costs around 9.3 million BP to get all perks on a single survivor without prestiging once, and 6.3 million BP per killer.
If you're making ~20k BP as a survivor on average per game, that would take you 465 games. If you play a game for ~10 minutes on average, that would 4650 minutes or 77.5 hours of game time to get all perks on - one - survivor.
If you made prestiging mandatory to get all of the perks, that would increase the BP required to get all perks on a single survivor up to ~13.3 million BP. Effectively you'd be increasing the grind in this game by 43%.
I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of that scares me hard.
---
Instead, I'd rather meta teachable perks be linked to their respective survivor and unable to be transferred. Then drop the perk tier system to reduce the individual grind per survivor. Now the grind is lessened for specific builds and play-styles you want, but still substantial if you want to max out every character to build around their survivor-specific perk.
This would reduce the grind to 4.46 million BP per survivor while simultaneously increasing build diversity.
---
If anyone's curious about the numbers I'm pulling up, here's what I did.
BP to reach to 50 is estimated based on experience, as well as the 60k BP per bloodweb at 50+ and could vary slightly.
The 9.3 million BP cost to get all perks on a single survivor however, was determined with the following steps:
- 101 unique survivor perks in the game currently with three tiers each, meaning 303 perks you can get in the bloodweb.
- You get 1 perk per lvl from lvl 1-40, then 2 perks from lvls 40-50 and onward
- You therefore get 60 (40 + 2 * 10) perks by lvl 50
- There's 243 perks left to get by lvl 50 (303 - 60)
- You get two perks per bloodweb, so you need to finish 122 bloodwebs (243 / 2)
- Each blood web costs ~60k BP, meaning you need 7,320,000 BP to get all remaining perks after reaching lvl 50 (122 * 60,000)
- You spent ~2 million BP getting to lvl 50, so the total BP needed to get all perks is 9,320,000 or 9.3 mil (2 + 7.3)
- Add 2 mil per prestige (the cost to get to lvl 50 each time) to get to 13.3 mil for all perks under your idea
A similar process was used to determine an estimate number of BP needed per killer and to get all perks if tier systems were eliminated.
"Instead, I'd rather meta teachable perks be linked to their respective survivor and unable to be transferred."
This idea could have worked in theory if it were implemented a long time ago, but by this point, it's WAAAAAY too late to do something like this without pissing off so many people who wasted a large amount of time grinding on a character who can no longer use the build you had in mind.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2651078#Comment_2651078
Possibly, although obviously it only works on healthy survivors. Injured ones just go down so wouldn’t take the Deep Wound.
If it was too much of a buff, though, it could pause the Head Trap timer while the survivor has a Deep Wound.
Yeah, I guess that could work.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2650915#Comment_2650915
Now that I’m thinking about it, inflicting Deep Wound with he Ambush would be thematic and a bit of a buff. Deep Wound is obviously mainly just additional slow down, but that’s ok. If she needs a buff at all it’s only a minor one probably, just something to make using Ambush more worthwhile compared to just doing a basic footchase out of stealth.
Personally, I think that's a more dangerous buff to give her than one would think. Being able to force a Survivor with active Traps to mend more than once can be frustrating for said Survivor without the need to explicitly hard tunnel them.
-
Just a thought: I was thinking that instead of breaking the pallet, she could benefit from being able to jump the pallet during an Ambush like the Legion. I used to think it would be unfair to take that bit of uniqueness from them, but with how many Killers now can break the pallet in some way, I don't think "jump the pallet" benefits from being unique anymore. Her ambush attack as-is isn't even good on most loops IMO and gets rekt by pre-dropping the pallet.
-
The grind actively disincentivizes me from wanting to try anything remotely creative because I absolutely do not wish to clog the bloodwebs with stuff that I might only try on occasion. I've already screwed up my bloodwebs by a considerable amount simply by trying to unlock the taxi build on the Pig. In fact, I realized recently that part of the reason I only play the Pig is because I can't bear the idea of trying to grind a passable build on another Killer from scratch. For me personally, the grind is horrid enough that I feel it actively stifles variety.
If I had to grind to P3 to get all the perks, I'd have stopped playing the game altogether.
-
I don't know what you're talking about. What is "boop the snoot?"
-
I don't actively camp/tunnel a Survivor who boops my snoot, but I have zero qualms about downing them immediately. You are not entitled to walk away because you thought I wasn't interested in trying to play seriously.
That said, I do get a certain amount of enjoyment out of pretending not to know what booping the snoot means in post-game chat.
-
@Mazoobi said:
A survivor whose perks give them an advantage due to their murderous/criminal background?
Could be interesting.
I was thinking more a Survivor whose perks give them an advantage due to actually having been influenced by the Entity in the past. Or maybe both.
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2648664#Comment_2648664
I think the deep wound is just from the chain, hence the deep wound when the chain breaks.
The Deep Wound is applied when either the Survivor breaks the chain or the Deathslinger lands the basic attack off the chain. If he reels someone in, swings, and misses, no Deep Wound is applied.
I guess the best way to justify it as a basic attack is like this:
Deathslinger's power will make it so when someone is speared by the chain, the next Basic Attack that the Deathslinger performs will inflict the Deep Wound status if it connects with the chained target. If the Survivor breaks the chain, the buff is removed from the Basic Attack and the now-unchained Survivor automatically gains the Deep Wound status.
-
I thought Trapper only got a single Bear Trap that he could use exactly once the entire game.
-
@Gamedozer7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2646532#Comment_2646532
Again they just want to use the radius as thats all the boon covers not the area nothing like that just the 24m. Thats all the boon covers is 24m?
The boon covers a radius of 24 meters, yes.
-
@Gamedozer7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2646464#Comment_2646464
Your assuming that the people im talking to are trying to find out more like the area but no there argument is boons aren't that good is only 24 meters. This is true but its not the whole picture they are looking a half a circle and saying thats not that much but there's a whole other half which the diameter shows better just really quick.
As for the bubble you are right is more of a cylinder my mistake.
"This is true but its not the whole picture they are looking a half a circle"
That...isn't true? Using the radius is not only looking at half a circle. You use the radius to look at the entire circle. The diameter isn't necessary.