TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Jarol said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2463799#Comment_2463799
Anyway that survivor will die yes or yes, if he puts in a locker or not. He only delays the inevitable.
You're saying that like it's not the most sensible thing to do against Tombstone Myers. :P
-
Who needs nude Yui when we can ask for Shirtless Clown.
-
Not really. He was pretty bad and I didn't have much fun playing him personally.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
So, basically old Undying with a Twist?
More like making the Totems less swingy on a game to game basis. Rather than centralizing all of a Hex perk's power onto one Totem, spread it out across all Totems. Now Survivors can cleanse any Totem on the Map to reduce the power level of any equipped Hex perks to more manageable levels.
(Obviously, some Hex perks would have to be changed to accomodate this, either by nerfing the top end a bit or by reworking the structure of the perk, like with Devour Hope.)
-
@SirGando said:
Yes. Im on PC and after every chapter since Blight came out the performance got worse and worse. its almost unplayable for me atm sometimes because of lags and freezes even though i have a decent rig.
I'm in a similar boat, except for me, the performance dropped very noticeably somewhere around the Resident Evil chapter.
-
Only if it's Gene Wilder. We don't need the Depp version. :P
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2460321#Comment_2460321
Hellz yeah, I got Sluzzy!
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2460344#Comment_2460344
Well the thread is partially my opinion, based on my overall experience and observations, so I don't see why I can't.
If we only used cold hard facts to judge DBD literally nothing would be changed because the game is so RNG dependent and the devs drip-feed us the actual numbers.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2460468#Comment_2460468
I've already said this already but I think you can do the same with Sprint Burst with less drawbacks.
Again, I'm not saying Dead Hard is a bad perk, but I think people overblow just how good it is and write off the many scenarios in which it does absolutely nothing.
True, it is only your personal opinion, but it also means that the anecdotal evidence can only carry so much weight to it.
-
I don't know many of them off the top of my head, but Evil Incarnate is definitely one of them.
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2459253#Comment_2459253
There is indeed no way to tell if the majority of the time this is true without dev input or a large enough poll, which is why I can't factor it out of my point. I feel as though 1/3 of my games have completely unbalanced map RNG that heavily favors one side, even on the maps that are more acknowledged as "balanced" such as Coal Tower.
If there's no way to verify if this is true, then you can't really factor it into your point, can you? That is the big problem with anecdotal evidence.
-
Pig: The ability to kill Survivors through what is essentially a minigame
-
I think it's better that the Killer doesn't get to see the tell.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2457536#Comment_2457536
How about this.
I safe them anyway and start recording. If they do any of the stuff to annoy other players i report them and eventually they never have to worry about a bad game again when they get banned.
Ding ding ding
This is the correct answer.
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2458425#Comment_2458425
The evidence is anecdotal but doesn’t deny my initial point, regardless of how common it is on a grand scale.
I am admittedly not swayed by your grand point. I think the majority of the time, the RNG should be sufficient enough that using DH to extend the chase is feasible, and the whole "injured" thing to me is a non-issue. Even with one-shot Killers, you will still inevitably end up being in the Injured state where you have access to Dead Hard.
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2457843#Comment_2457843
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsuancaAc3E
This isn't even uncommon for me.
I doubt it's as common as you allege.
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2457787#Comment_2457787
Used correctly-- yeah, I agree that Dead Hard can potentially end a chase. However, Dead Hard operating on a few conditionals allows me to look past that, as the map RNG has to be good enough to do it, and they also have to be injured, which means it's not great against instadown killers or a few others.
I can't imagine what sort of RNG would have to take place for Dead Hard to be ineffective, considering that it simply needs to happen at a decent loop.
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2457682#Comment_2457682
Wouldn't that then be the same situation with Lithe and Sprint Burst then?
And no, because Dead Hard extending a chase for actual minutes means that the killer is either doing something very wrong, or they're playing on Cowshed 30 seconds into the game against a very good survivor.
I don't think Lithe and particularly SB promote that in the same way.
Maybe whole minutes might be a bit generous, but I think it's reasonable to say that it can prolong a Survivor's second hit by a decent amount if used correctly (potentially long enough that it may not be worth it for Killers to continue the chase, which does mean that the Survivor wins that chase).
-
@thefallenloser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2457652#Comment_2457652
If a killer is chasing a survivor who used Dead Hard for minutes after that, sounds like a skill problem.
Does then not mean that Dead Hard just enables the Survivor to win the chase cleanly?
-
You have to actually play the game. You don't have to play it well, but if you are very obviously doing little with the intent of massive deranking, that can be punishable (though not sure if/how that will change once MMR comes back for good).
-
@voorheesgt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455210#Comment_2455210
This only applies if by some miracle survivors can not be found after an EXTREMELY long period 1+hrs. If survivors are just hiding, any half decent killer will find them in much less time.
It doesn't have to be over an hour necessarily. Even twenty minutes of pure hiding with no attempt at doing gens is enough to call it hostage holding
-
Considering that I've been able to turn 0ks into 3ks at the end of the game by camping the basement, definitely not. :P
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455351#Comment_2455351
"If the doctors is defending his gens by not leaving the gens (hitting or shocking survivors "away") it can drag out the game for ages."
This right here is enough foe the Doc to be guilty.
Thats exactly what i mean. A rule which would not allow the Killer to play the game (in our opinion or not is irrelevant) optimal should not excist in first place.
I am personally against draging out the game and hiding or camping a 3 gen is not fun in general, but it is still playing the game. In every scenario we talk about, the other side has the possibility to end the game. If the survivors play it good they can overwhelm the killer very fast and if the killer knows what he is doing, hiding wont help for that long.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455353#Comment_2455353
Having a 3 gen and only defending them should then also be bannable. If there is a strategic reason behind it or not is completly irrelevant aswell, since it is subjective. Some survivors in the lower ranks might actually be even so scared they dont touch a gen. A friend of mine told me about his first games and he and his friends were so scared, they were not doing a single gen the first 20 minutes. Do they deserve a ban? If no because they are new to the game, how to even define or proof that this was purpose or not?
Anyway, the devs handle this as they want and like i said, situations like this are so rare, this game has probably much bigger problems.
Kind regards
If the Killer is intentionally not downing Survivors, the Killer is not playing optimally but rather preventing the game from moving on (which can be a punishable offense). If the Killer is actively trying to down Survivors, then they're not doing anything wrong by dragging the game out.
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455321#Comment_2455321
That is not answering the question. If the doctors is defending his gens by not leaving the gens (hitting or shocking survivors "away") it can drag out the game for ages. He is not activly hunting them down because if he would, he might loose the game. So it is a stalement pretty much. I had this situation where we were in a 3gen, ruin was up and the killer just defended.
I know this is very unusual, but looking at the survivor hiding example, its prettty much the same. They might not touch the gens (the doctor is not chasing the survivors) and they might drag the game out as long as possible (so is the doctor in our example) but one thing is a strategy, the other thing is bannable.
Whatever, its not a big problem anyway so i guess we a discussing here for the sake of discussing, but i find something like this a bit hypocritialy and biased.
The answer is that the Doctor is supposed to play in such a way that actively progresses the game forward and does not hold the game hostage. If that means leaving a 3-gen to look for Survivors who are not around, then that is what it means.
"If the doctors is defending his gens by not leaving the gens (hitting or shocking survivors "away") it can drag out the game for ages."
This right here is enough foe the Doc to be guilty.
And who exactly is this being hypocritical toward? The doctor or the Survivors? Neither side is allowed to hold the game hostage.
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455277#Comment_2455277
Yes but this can be claimed to everything then. The Doctor is protecting the gens and the best strategy would be to not leave his gens. Is the Doctor now forced to play suboptimal because its against these questionable rules?
If the Doctor is actively not trying to advance the game, then the Doctor is holding the game hostage. Same goes for Survivors.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455289#Comment_2455289
Why are they called survivors then, and not "escapists" or "generator maintenance personnel"?
I dunno, because none of those phrases roll off the tongue well? Not that it's relevant.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455265#Comment_2455265
It is not impossible to kill them: the killer can still find them. It's just some killers don't want to put effort in it, they want survivors to be suicidal and run straight into them. Playing immersive and using stealth is part of the game, that's why we have so many stealth perks. And the main objective of survivors is, believe it or not, to survive. If I run into a killer who refuses to leave the gens by an inch - I will die. If I don't run to him - I will probably survive longer. Yes, the killer has to go and look for suvivors, if he refuses to do so - it is him who is refusing to do his objective to kill, not the survivors.
"And the main objective of survivors is, believe it or not, to survive."
According to the actual website, the main objective is to escape the map by finishing five generators.
-
@tester said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455267#Comment_2455267
You are confusing an entertainment product, such as a video game, with a sport. You are trying to apply unrelated definition made for apples to oranges. It's not even an esport and devs routinely reminded about this when asked if they want to make official competitions. But if you want to be that guy in the MEME I posted above, than by all means... whatever makes you happy.
Sports and video games are both games, so it makes no difference to me in that respect. :P
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455233#Comment_2455233
So lets assume the survivors have 3 gened themselve in a difficult spot, Ruin is still up and in between the generators and the killer who is the doctor is sucessfully defending the gens for a long time. Is this a valid strategy? Many will claim it is, since he is activly playing the game. But it is pretty much the same what the survivors are doing by hiding. Both paticiapte in the most passive way possible and both sides can drag out the game for a very long time period.
It is as long as the Doctor is trying to actually find the Survivors in the meantime. If the doc is just sitting there and making zero effort in finding them, that is hostage holding on the Killer's part.
-
@tester said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455241#Comment_2455241
That's in official competitions. In real ordinary life, if people decide that you are not worthy of their time and walk away from you, than you lost.
We all have occasional games when there is an AFK survivor. Do you count it as winning a chase when you find and hook that person? I don't. Because to me winning is outplaying opponent. This is all just a matter of opinion. There is nothing I or you can say to "prove" that one opinion is "righter" than the other.
So officially, win via forfeit is a thing. Works for me. ;)
-
@tester said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2454872#Comment_2454872
They did win though because no sane person would count kills after your opponent got bored and decided to leave.
Imagine you played soccer and your opponent decided to leave and then you kicked into empty gates and then congratulated yourself with a win.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/RORDZKRQ7S03/5kw2n8.jpg
"Imagine you played soccer and your opponent decided to leave and then you kicked into empty gates and then congratulated yourself with a win."
The phrase you're looking for is "win via forfeit."
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455210#Comment_2455210
Makes no sense at all, but okay. When a killer is slugging them to death its fine but when survivors hide its not. Strange rules.
Its either all or nothing.
Because slugging is guaranteed to result in death in four minutes if left alone. Hiding is indefinite.
-
@xEa said:
Boring? Sure. Scummy? Maybe
But bannable? Cant imagine that. How should that be holding the game hostage? Find and kill them.
Mods have already explained it: The Survivors can be punished if they are holding the game up for an extremely long time by spending all their time hiding and making zero effort to do gens (provided that the Killer is actually making an effort to find them).
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455161#Comment_2455161
People who play video games are more sensitive
That doesn't seem relevant to the idea of playing to win.
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455097#Comment_2455097
If all people care about in games is winning, then I’d much rather they played sports instead
What's the difference between video games and physical games in that regard?
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455102#Comment_2455102
Even when the killer is right on top of gens and is refusing to move? Yeah, not wanting to die easily and not running straight into the killer's face should definitely be bannable. Meanwhile slugging the last survivor after the game is over until he bleeds out is not bannable at all. Totally no bias here.
Context is important. If the Killer is looking for people but they are hiding forever, then yes. If the Killer is just sitting on a 3-gen and making zero effort to find anyone, then no.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2455085#Comment_2455085
Hiding is not taking the game hostage either: the killer can stop it any time by finding the survivors. Holding the game hostage is only literally bodyblocking survivors as a killer while the EGC can't start, only literally unending situations qualify.
Mods, devs, etc. have already shot that claim down multiple times. Hiding indefinitely with no one doing gens and no Hatch/EGC in play is officially considered hostage holding.
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2454888#Comment_2454888
So, one person’s fun is fine to overrule everyone else’s? If you want to stand still, you can do that outside, you don’t need to play DBD and make a boring match for all. We all know damn well the most fun matches are the ones with a back and forth between the survivors, those should be encouraged.
As long as no rules are being broken, the goal in a PvP game is to win. How much of a priority that is will vary from person to person.
-
@Junylar said:
- "Is camping/slugging/tunneling bannable?"
- "No, you play the game however you want, just have fun!"
- "Is playing immersive and not touching gens bannable?"
- "Of course! You always have to show yourself to the killer! You are not here to have fun, you are here for other players' fun!"
Camping/slugging/tunneling is not holding the game hostage, which is the rule that is broken when all Survivors stop doing gens and hide indefinitely.
-
If you die and they continue doing nothing for super long periods of time, then absolutely.
-
I hope you had video evidence (or at least a post-game confession) because without it they ain't gonna do anything.
-
@tester said:
You gave up. Since you refused to chase, they had a choice of waste time M1 on gens or waste time with DC penalty. I don't know which one is more boring. They won either way. You can take the loss as a Man and continue chasing and maybe learning something from their moves. Or... You can camp like a sore. Whatever floats your boat.
Whenever I see a camper, I just stop playing and Alt-Tab to youtube or twitch. If you are so desperate for a "win", have it. I'm not wasting my time on you if the match has 0 (ZERO) entertainment value.
They didn't win, though. The Killer effectively got 2k, which isn't a win for Survivors.
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2454766#Comment_2454766
I doubt that you dont have a problem when you get tunneled and camped every single game* but i guess to each their own.
*Thank god the majority is not like that, but if everybody would think like you, this game would be a very aweful experience.
Hey, when I get tunneled, I try my best to run (can't get good at being chased if I'm not chased, after all). When I get camped, I hold on for dear life and hope that my teammates actually gen rush after seeing the Killer camping with Kindred.
-
One could argue that camping can be beat out by hammering through gens at the cost of the unlucky soul who got camped, so you may wish to be careful not to let the gens go like that (though that requires the Survivors to actually understand that). For tunneling? No real reason not to, as far as the game is concerned. At best, you might have to worry about BT or DS, but that's really it.
-
@V1X said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2453578#Comment_2453578
I feel like booping the snoot is something the killer has to start not the survivor like they crouch and spin until they get the message, that's usually how I do it. it's of mutual agreement, it is a game in the end ur supposed to have fun, in the end i think it's cute :)
That's never how it works for me. They always start crouching up to me, and then I hit them as they try, and then after the game, they'll accuse me of being no fun.
-
I'm not a fan of being expected to allow someone to boop the snoot. I'm not interested in stopping the game because someone expects me to partake in goofing off.
-
In the context of PvP, I'd say it's an okay mentality to have as long as no actual rulebreaking is involved.
-
@toastcrusher said:
i wont even respond to that...but its sad what your saying.
Not really. Generally people aren't allowed entry into places if they straight-up admit that they refuse to agree to the rules put in place.
-
@toastcrusher said:
i pressed i dont agree, but then the game wont work....get it now? forced to agree to use the product i paid for...
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work. You don't get to play if you don't agree to follow the rules.
-
@toastcrusher said:
i never agreed to these rules, i was forced and thats a big difference....and stop with the bs that games are unplayable....killers make some games unplayable, and thats why people dc, and even so...if on or 2 or even 3 DC...well you just move on to the nxt game, cause thats how it works....that you or some others here have problems with unplayable games....not my problem sinds its not your or bhvr's problem that a lot of games are unplayable because of toxic behaviour
If you didn't agree to the rules, why did you click to agree?
-
@lemonsway said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2452933#Comment_2452933
And i don't take your research serious either.
Here you go:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DeadByBHVR/status/1227616074406989825 -
@lemonsway said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2452921#Comment_2452921
It's not, the match would happen otherwise. Everything was ready for it but a last second miss happening determined the whole process to be shutdown. Imagine you're buying a home and the banks says yes to everything and then when you're closing the deal the bank backs out, are you not losing your home?
Your experience does not match up with what I am reading from multiple sources.