TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
HOW DARE THEY.
HOW.
DARE.
THEY.
PEBBLE WAS NOT BUFFED ENOUGH.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1858619#Comment_1858619
The killer will see the overall hook progress, so not the specific hook count.
Can you clarify what that means? Is it just what Killers already can see, or has something changed in that regard?
-
Does the Killer get to see the hook counter as well? This would be super duper nice as a QoL for Pig to know who is on Death Hook and does not need a RBT.
-
I think once you get over the hilarity of a power that helps Survivors, it is a pretty reasonable buff to him. Just don't be dumb with how you throw your sonic tonics.
-
This makes Undying + Devour Hope a lot spicier.
-
@Almo said:
We don't want it triggering on getting downed by an addoned Bear Trap, or going down to Deep Wound, etc. It's better game design if we don't start stacking up a series of exceptions.
Again, Play With Your Food specifies Basic or Special Attack. Why not just use those parameters and change Knock Out to "Survivors put into the Dying State by your Basic or Special Attack?"
-
Lightburn and Luck
-
When someone tells me to get good, it's usually because they salty that I camped the hook at endgame. I just like to laugh at them for it.
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1852995#Comment_1852995
Once again, anyone trying to dig that deep is clearly so committed to quitting that they would just suicide.
Untrue, because they wouldn't be trying to dig that deep in the first place if they just suicide. :P
-
Doctor. I mained Doctor for a bit of a while, then I switched to Pig when my gf bought me all the licensed chapters that were available at the time.
-
That is pretty cool, I gotta say.
-
The only one of those I really agree with personally is Infectious Fright.
-
Why Pinky Finger, if I may ask? IMO, it's not comparable to Iri-head + extra Hatchets since you still need to run up to Survivor and M1 them in order to get the one-hit down (even if they are slowed down from the gas). And running up to a Survivor and hitting them point-blank with the bottle is basically just Leatherface with extra steps.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
I hope they scrapped it. MMR is not going to work, even if it does not pair Red Rank Killers against people who are doing their first game and vice-versa.
They should tweak the Emblem-System and make Rank Reset bigger again. This would already solve a lot, because then people would not cluster in Red Ranks, despite having completely different Skill Levels.
Instead they just try to fix something and make it worse all the time. (Is there a word for it? I know there is one in German "verschlimmbessern", but I dont know if there is an English word for that, lol)
Instead they just try to fix something and make it worse all the time. (Is there a word for it? I know there is one in German "verschlimmbessern", but I dont know if there is an English word for that, lol)
The closest thing I can think of is to say that their attempts to fix a is only exacerbating it.
-
@XombieRocker said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1847150#Comment_1847150
You have a chance. Either wait till you think he's as far from the gate as possible and then disarm and try to open before he gets back or try and be clever.
Disarm trap and go to other gate. Disarm, open a little, then hide, come back and repeat.
Survivors have many chances to NOT be in this situation, so no, you're not entitled to "one more".
Like I said, if Trapper's killed 3 survivors, closed the hatch, AND trapped both gates before you can get out, he's won, fair and square. You've been outplayed. Accept your likely loss.
You do not have a chance. There is no being clever. The Trapper stands about halfway between the two doors and simply waits for a Trap to be disarmed. No need to walk back and forth. "As far as possible" is halfway between the two gates.
What you are describing with going back and forth and back and forth is is not feasible in the slightest if you have to alert the Trapper every single time you want to nudge the Gate a little. Either the Trapper will inevitably catch you because you need to do this so many times or you will run out of time because you have to do this so many times.
you're not entitled to "one more".
Yes, you literally are. That's why the Exit Gates are powered when the Hatch is closed instead of you just instantly dying. That's your "one more."
Like I said, if Trapper's killed 3 survivors, closed the hatch, AND trapped both gates before you can get out, he's won, fair and square. You've been outplayed. Accept your likely loss.
Not fair. Fair would mean that there is a way to beat it, even if it is unlikely. There is no way to beat this as the last Survivor.
-
@XombieRocker said:
This is only really a problem if you're the last survivor left and he's already closed the hatch. At that point you've already lost, so accept the loss and move on.
"You've already lost" does not mean "You literally are unable to escape." Even if it's difficult, the last Survivor is entitled to one last chance to escape, but that is rendered impossible if you cannot touch the Exit Gate switch without 100% notifying the Killer of your presence.
-
@HR_Helios said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1847067#Comment_1847067
That's the point. You've lost already. He's just sealing your fate
There's a difference between "you've lost" and "you literally have a 0% chance to escape." The latter isn't fair.
-
@HR_Helios said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1846927#Comment_1846927
There's no issue with being able to set a trap. It should only really result in one kill. If there's two or more survivors one person on each gate results in split pressure where the trapper can only secure one kill at most. Chances are if youre in a situation where that's an issue you've lost anyway. He should not get a kill with 4 people left. If he does it's the survivors error.
This is very much an issue when there's only one Survivor left and the Hatch has been closed. Unless there's a Key in play somewhere, that last Survivor literally has zero chance of escape because that Survivor will never be able to attempt to open a Gate without the Trapper being notified of their Trap being disarmed.
-
@Metalhead said:
Traps only take like seconds to disarm though...
The problem is that Traps make a big loud noise when you disarm the trap, which means the Trapper will know you're there. If you try to get sneaky and avoid detection, the Trapper can just reset the Trap, putting you back at square one.
-
@TheButcher6641 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1846732#Comment_1846732
Okay I'm doubting myself now. How about:
Increases the aura-reading ranges of you and your team by 10 metres (open-handed effects do not stack). Grants the ability to see the aura of crows when within a 24/28/32 metre range (the aura of crows is not extended by your open-handed).
The extended range is good at any tier but not too powerful and the higher the tier the further away you can see crows. The aura of crows would stay visible while crows fly off and the perk would light up when they do, to tell you that somebody has triggered a crow within 32 metres of you. This would allow you to locate the whereabouts of your teammates and the killer as well as avoiding crows to not attract the killer. Or if you're not a fan of the crow idea:
Increases the aura-reading ranges of you and your team by 10 metres. The killer's aura-reading ability is impaired by 4/6/8 metres.(open-handed effects do not stack)
This would help against very strong killer perks such as nurse's calling (which would lower the range in which the killer can see you healing) and Barbecue and chilli (which would increase the distance that you have to be away from the hook for your aura to be shown). Thoughts?
Hmm...perhaps. You may be onto something here (with the aura-imparing second ability. Crow ability I think is bad).
-
@TheButcher6641 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1846589#Comment_1846589
Okay wait I think I've got it.
Original: Increases the aura-reading ranges of you and your team by 4/6/8 metres.
My rework idea: Increases your aura-reading ranges by 5/10/15 metres. Grants the ability to see the aura of crows when within a 32 metre range (the aura of crows is extended by open-handed).
How would this interact with Kindred? If it allows everyone to see the Killer for 31 meters (without stacking), that is overkill IMO. If it only allows you to see the Killer for 31 meters, then i prefer the current Open-Handed because it increases the range for everyone else.
-
I demand an actual Jaws chapter where the shark is a killer swimming through land. The TR/chase music would be legendary.
-
@Mistercookie said:
Well if I patrol the whole map and nothing gets worked on ever, I'm gonna start checking corners, bushes and lockers.
If they didn't have crows it means they were interacting with objects. That mainly leaves only lockers so at one point you're bound to go down there once and it means both the survivors are gonna die. (Assuming they can't escape well if they play like that)
It's a dick move to try and hide like that, but then it could've been countered by whispers for example.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it and I don't approve but is it deemed a bannable offense? Unsure.
Well, we know that it is a reportable offense for everyone to hide for a super long time without any Survivors doing gens. The question is more whether it still counts if they were consistently hiding in the same one place where they could easily be found (the basement) and only didn't get caught because the Killer simply never thought to check the basement.
I would think the answer is still yes because the Survivors still made no effort to try and end the game by doing gens while the Killer still made an effort to find the Survivors (even if the Killer was still bad at it).
-
They said on the last stream that the next Killer to be looked at after the Clown is the Demogorgon.
-
Object and Insidious. Both are either toxic or trash depending on how they are used, with no middle ground.
-
Killer: Pig
Perks: Agitation, Iron Grasp, Mad Grit, Surge (technically a meme build, but given how I've been using it for quite a while now, I'll count it)
Add-Ons: Any of the Pig's actually useful add-ons (and Tampered Timer sometimes)
Agitation + Iron Grasp + Mad Grit allow me to run to a gen or potentially even chase+hit a Survivor while carrying another Survivor on my back (even if I'm not going at the full 115% speed). Even though I don't like Surge all that much in a vacuum, I find it to be the gen slowdown perk that best synergizes with the aforementioned "chase while carrying" strategy, as it allows me to regress a gen without interrupting the flow of downing, picking up, and running.
-
@Withered8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1843042#Comment_1843042
That' fair, but then people seem to forget that both sides would need balancing if you were to balance for a deathsquad, becasue currently those are the only things stopping the best killers like i said.
I mean...yeah. I agree that both sides would need to be balanced. If things on the Killer end need to be nerfed as a result, so be it.
@Withered8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1843055#Comment_1843055
That's a terrible mentality to have though. Can you imagine if survivors had the mentality of it's only a win if it's a 4man out?
And no it's not a comback but considering you're loosing a game and then you end up drawing, seems like a decent result considering the match.
2k? Sure, I can agree with that. 1k? No, that's not really a decent result IMO.
-
@Withered8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1842316#Comment_1842316
Have you not notcied thought that even when survivors stomp killers, they almost always come back with a 1 or 2k regardless? And i've seen countless games where the killer gets everyone at 3-5 gens. All it takes is one survivor mistake and it's game over.
I don't think 1-2k is a "comeback." That falls into the opposite mentality of "it's not a win unless it's a 4k".
-
@Withered8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1842338#Comment_1842338
Yes it shoudl be about the more skill side winning, and it mostly is. So many newer or mediocre killers expect to be able to be beating these swfs consistently when it's quite clear they don't have enough experience or skill to do so, even people who try and beat these swfs with extremely casual and memey builds/killers.
I think the game should be balanced the way every other multiplayer game worth a dang is balanced. And that means doing something about what is generally labeled a "deathsquad."
-
@NAERUUU said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1842305#Comment_1842305
Maybe allowed the banland for the old players or +1000H or plays , cause they loves this game :3
Maybe allow the banland for no one and just ban them.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
Am I the only weirdo that counts in his head the wiggle progress as killer?
It takes approx 20 seconds of full wiggling from a survivor (assuming no perks) to have them escape. I count in my head as soon as I pick someone up...
I count the number of cycles of grunts Survivors make. It takes about ten grunt cycles for them to break free (eleven if you have Iron Grasp equipped).
At the very least, I think that the ability to see the wiggle progress bar should be added to Mad Grit (largely because I use Mad Grit as part of my build :P ).
-
"If the game was balanced so that majority of killers could decently and consistently beat these teams, then what's actually posing a challenge to you? What's stopping you from just winning everygame?"
Players being better than you, obviously. Balancing around "deathsquads" doesn't mean that facing "deathsquads" are now close to freebies. It means that facing "deathsquads" are now more about the more skilled side winning.
-
@gibblywibblywoo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1841201#Comment_1841201
Yeah lol Pig is literally the killer who can get survivors off gens without even needing to chase them off.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh some players will get off the gen once their timer starts. :P
-
This code worked for me just now.
-
@Madjura said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840502#Comment_1840502
According to the League of Legends wiki skins were first removed in 2011: https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Legacy_Vault#Retired_skins
I don't think that it will necessarily lead to a monetary loss. See my post above, about the Plague robe skins. Anyone who bought Plague but has not bought the skin is unlikely to do so in the future. Most sales of this skin likely are from new players who buy Plague and like the skins and buy one of them. By announcing a future (temporary) removal some players may buy it who otherwise never would.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840533#Comment_1840533
That would be the explanation in the news / blog post announcing because straight up saying it's done to boost sales for unpopular skins that are not going to make any money going forward would look bad.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840836#Comment_1840836
Based on legacy skins and people still asking for them to come back, players disliking the event charm system because it's annoying to get an item that will never come back and also others complaining about the return of the battlepass items (such as the elephant outfit for Clown recently) suggests that exclusivity of items is something that at least some players care about. By turning unpopular skins into (temporary) exclusives at least those players will likely buy them.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840839#Comment_1840839
I am not encouraging that. I am very much against it. I can however see the developers doing it if it means boosting sales. I am interested in whether or not there has been a clear statement from the developers about whether or not this is something they are going to do.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840540#Comment_1840540
Thank you, but that does not mean that it won't happen. It may not be planned now but that could change very easily.
The way the battlepass items are handled is already very similar - items are available for a limited time and then any way to get them is removed for a limited period of time. Based on how the battlepass function it seems safe to say that the developers are okay with items not being available temporarily to either boost sales or to make items exclusive for some time because some players like the exclusivity. Whatever the reason for the design of the battlepass item availability is, the same would apply to removing items from the store, permanently or temporarily.
It's also not necessarily about a need, but a possible excuse for why it is being done. The main reason the developers would remove items from the store is to boost sales. Saying that the cause is a restructuring of the store would be the explanation given because outright saying that it's because of money would make a lot of people very angry.
To be fair, it sounds less like you're merely trying to explain why they might do it and more like you're trying to advocate for it and explain why it's a good idea for the devs.
-
@Madjura said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1840493#Comment_1840493
Having too many items makes individual items stand out less. A new player who opens the store and sees old / low quality items may not notice the one thing they like and spend no money as a result.
By removing items from the store, but announcing that move first, you can also get players to buy items they would never buy otherwise. Reason being that they don't want to miss out. The same principle applies when they (temporarily) return: "Buy it NOW because who knows when you will have the chance to do so again."
Especially for unpopular cosmetics this could boost sales significantly. For example the Plague (picking Plague because she is the least popular killer) "robe" outfits (picking them because they are probably the least popular cosmetics). Anyone who hasn't bought them yet is unlikely to buy them ever. But by announcing that they are being removed from the store some players may buy it because they might never return.
Essentially removed cosmetics would be "legacy-lite". We know that legacy is popular because people still ask about it to return often. By turning unpopular cosmetics into something akin to legacy (= you can potentially never get it again) the popularity is increased and in turn, the number of sales.
By removing items from the store, but announcing that move first, you can also get players to buy items they would never buy otherwise. Reason being that they don't want to miss out. The same principle applies when they (temporarily) return: "Buy it NOW because who knows when you will have the chance to do so again."
Please don't encourage that. That is an extremely anti-consumer practice.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
Let me ask everyone here a question:
Would you rather cheap skins and an expensive base game + DLC, costing up to 3x more than they do right now, or would you rather the base game + DLC remain relatively cheap (relatively being the word here) letting you get the perks you need to and have a better game experience, with skins cost more?
I know for sure I'd rather have the perks I want for cheaper than the skins I want for cheaper.
Going by how other games do it, the base game should have more characters included for free.
-
I too would like to see the 1-minute clips that back up the claims that you are making.
-
No, in my opinion. Allowing multiple people to escape before all the gens are finished without any downsides or additional effort needed (no, someone dying is not a downside but rather a condition needed to allow the aforementioned scenario to occur) I think fundamentally undermines the balance of the game.
-
Fullscreen. I want to be able to see everything.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Clown changes are slated to happen with the next mid-chapter update.
-
@Terro said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1835037#Comment_1835037
Well actually the other guy does have a point. Technically, if you just go along with the rules the other 3 members of the swf are also reportable for not continuing the game. It's arguably also holding the game hostage. If we didn't know it was a SWF working together it could just as easily be survivors working with a killer to trap some1until they DC, which has happened in the past. Of course, the killer is also in trouble depending on the situation. It doesn't matter if "everyone" not including the killer considers it fine, especially if the group is a SWF.
In terms of the spirit of the rules, the other ppl in the swf are probably fine, since it sounds like the Wraith body blocked from mid game and not near end game.
No, because the other three people are not preventing someone from continuing the game. If it was three people working with the Killer to trap the fourth, that would absolutely be a different story. In that case, the three people would be doing something the fourth is not okay with. And in that case, OP's post would certainly hold the other Survivors in the same guilty regard as the Wraith. In this case, the three are doing something that both the Killer AND the fourth are okay with. It is the Killer who is doing something that someone is objecting to.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1833640#Comment_1833640
Then the 3/4 of the team are kind of taking the game hostage themselves, together with the killer.
The 1/4 should rethink to swf with them again, when they decide against using the only means to avoid a dc penalty for the 1/4.
But hey pls stop quoting me. You obviously want to find all the blame for this 30+ minute game in the killer. While I say, yes the killer is a dick and can/should be reported BUT the people in his swf are also at fault for dragging it out and you want to ignore the second point.
Edit: Feel free to.do otherwise but I will chose to ignore you and let you enjyz having the last say in this looping discussion.
No, they are not. The trapped player has demonstrated that the team in its entirety does not want to leave anyone behind, and the Wraith has demonstrated that he is okay with staying in place for 30+ minutes. Ergo, the three players choosing to not open the gates is something that no player has an issue with. Meanwhile, the trapped player has demonstrated that the Wraith is refusing to allow at least one player to finish the game (the one he is bodyblocking), so his actions are one that at least one person is taking an action with. So if the three remaining players are taking an action that no player takes issue with and the Wraith is taking an action that one player is taking issue with AND is reportable, then only the Wraith is at fault for the situation. Sorry, but you are just wrong in this case.
-
I support Survivors being allowed to forcibly die if slugged too long, but it would have to be longer than a minute. I think at least 2 minutes (which is the amount of time it takes for a Survivor to be one-hooked without any attempts to self-unhook and with maximum struggle) would be fair.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1833349#Comment_1833349
First of all to your case, that is a perfect example for a game taken hostage since you can't finish it or exit without dc.
Second many people are not defending the behaviour of the killer since it is ban worthy and reportable. What they are saying is that, in the op's case, the swf teammates (with which the op was probably on coms or able to communicate) didn't finish the game in this situation where nothing else can be done if the killer is such a jerk.
The game didn't have to last more than 3 minutes. They would have needed to accept that there is nothing to be done and simply do as if their teammate had a power outage or whatever. But the "pride" (don't know what to call it exactly) or altruism of an swf dictates to escape all together if possible, which isn't in this case and has to identified and accepted.
And to finish again with the statement that those 2 paragraphs above do not approve of any behaviour by the killer but address the partly fault of the swf to let this incident blow out of proportion.
Edit: maybe the devs could implement a mechanic where a survivor becomes able to phase through the killer, like after getting hit, if the killer stand in their direct vicinity for more than 30-60 seconds.
And to finish again with the statement that those 2 paragraphs above do not approve of any behaviour by the killer but address the partly fault of the swf to let this incident blow out of proportion.
Counterpoint: The SWF team is not the one preventing a player from ending the game. 3/4 players are simply electing not to end the game themself. 1/4 player DOES want to end the game themself but the Killer is saying "no, I'm not letting you." It's not a problem if everyone is fine with dragging the game on. The problem is when one person does not want to drag the game on but a player is actively stopping them from bringing the game to a close.
-
The last thing they have said about changing her was that they might give her add-ons a look-through, but nothing really to her base kit.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1832213#Comment_1832213
And for toxic people not to be toxic but oh well.
Voluntarily body blocking someone against their will for 30+ minutes is toxic. There is no scenario where it is not.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1832066#Comment_1832066
Not really from my pov. It is in the hands of the swf to end this matter, unfair as it may be, in a matter of less than 5 minutes but decided to blow it up to 30+.
If the blocked survivor would've been face camped and been the only kill, the whole ordeal wouldn't have taken as long with the same results. Prolonging like this feels like hurt pride or emotion from the swf, to get the fourth guy out at all costs.
I don't aknowledge his overall behaviour but at the point of all gens done (if it ever came to that point or they stopped midway), I would've viewed it (from wraiths pov) as a kind of experiment to see how far an swf is going to stay in the trial, instead of starting the egc, "go next" and simply report the me.
Feels the same as people starting to argue with a toxic player via chat in league of legends. It won't help or improve the situation. The best solution there is finish the game, report the toxic person and go for the next game.
It is in the hands of the Wraith to not bodyblock for 30+ minutes. That is 100% fact.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1831813#Comment_1831813
This isn’t 100% correct.
Waiting, using insidious, by a gen with significant repair progress that was just kicked is an effective use of that perk.
As someone who would occasionally attempt this with Pig crouch, no it's not. They are not afraid to just leave and do another gen. It is 100% in their best interest to call your bluff.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1829957#Comment_1829957
Not really, in accordance to his statement we would need to know the state of the trail at the point of the body block starting. Where 4 gens already done and etc only a minute away or were more than 3 still up?
Why didn't his teammates in his swf just end the game and left him for one trial. It's not as if the world ends if you don't get out everytime just because 4 people want to leave together. Swf increase altruism to the extreme, if he would've been a random with 3 others (swf or not), they would've probably not even noticed the problem and started the egc for the trial to end.
Edit: of course the Playstile of the wraith is an unsportsmanlike conduct but, just from.the information given, nothing seems to be completely set in stone and the whole problematic didn't need to escalate to 30+ minutes.
I would say the Wraith manually staying in place and locking someone in for 30+ minutes invalidates anything else. It does not matter if the SWF wants to leave or not because the Wraith is committing to it regardless.