TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1702387#Comment_1702387
Conclusion: I look at the chart and go "Oh hey Freddy too good plz nerf".
Confirmation: I already came to the conclusion Freddy was too strong based on other evidence, the chart just further validates my claims.
In both cases, you are using the chart to validate a claim being made, which is what BHVR is actively discouraging.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1702354#Comment_1702354
It's not a conclusion, it's a confirmation. I already knew he was too strong without any data, just by playing as/against him at rank 1. The chart merely confirms what I've been saying for a while now.
Hence I provide a detail breakdown of what exactly makes him strong. Unlike the usual "Spirit not counter play what can you do?" nonsense that is IMO is just theory crafting, what I present here is none of that. This information comes from experience, and while it is subjective, the fact I can articulate EXACTLY what it is about him that is too strong and I can identify very specific and simple solutions gives more weight to my argument.
It's not a conclusion, it's a confirmation.
What's the difference?
-
He very much is and the chart above confirms it.
Didn't BHVR say not to draw any conclusions based on the chart?
-
@SleepyWillo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1702180#Comment_1702180
The scummy practices arent new Behaviour (see what I did there?).
We've known for a while who we're dealing with. That picture is becoming more and more clear with each cash grab they try to push on us as an "event".
We shouldnt be surprised when they try to screw us. At this stage its to be expected. If you fall for it at this stage you just havent been paying attention.
All I care about is this individual instance.
-
@SleepyWillo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1702143#Comment_1702143
Dont get me wrong. I do think it was a completely scummy thing to do. But nowhere did they say the cosmetics would stay a certain price for a certain time. Also, a Halloween sale had been announced since the very start with up to 75% discounts. It cant be completely unexpected at the same time.
I do feel bad for the ones that bought the cosmetics. BHVR didnt give us an event and the people buying the Halloween cosmetics to dress up and embrace the season for themselves and others make a difference (same with Christmas when all people can do is wear an ugly jumper).
The TLDR of it is that BHVR are scummy and we shouldnt be surprised when they take full advantage of people that put any faith in them.
Caveat emptor means nothing to me if the practice is scummy.
Or, if I want to be honest, caveat emptor means nothing to me.
-
Doesn't really change my stance.
-
@SleepyWillo said:
They bought something for an agreed upon price.
Did those people expect the price to never change or go on sale?
Honestly I feel its what those people deserve for still supporting BHVR with this obvious cash grab.
Depends. If these are old skins that are being discounted after some time, I would agree. If these are new skins that are being discounted out of nowhere almost immediately after releasing them, I would say that it is unreasonable to make that assumption and not very fair to the people who bought in during a specific window.
-
@herrik666 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1700877#Comment_1700877
Its not a bug there's no way. It looks and sounds way better.
"Bug Fix: Fixed an issue that caused the Clown to make noises other than HUEHUEHUEHUE."
-
@Slendy4321 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1701957#Comment_1701957
Not really. Things get done hunters/survivors get changed based on how much their banned. They get tweaked and it's balanced. Wish I could say the same for DbD but we all know that's not true
It absolutely is IMO. Barring certain Killers creates huge feelbads if someone sunk all their resources into that Killer (or spent IRL money). Same with perks to some extent if someone put in a lot of effort to unlock certain perks for all their Killers/Survivors. Then there is the issue of such a system being used to knock out counters to their builds. You don't need such an awful system to know what to balance.
-
@Slendy4321 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1701911#Comment_1701911
Yeah the highest ranks in Identity V. Player are allowed to ban certain characters and they are unavailable to the opposite side
Terrible system IMO.
-
I didn't know this was a feature in Identity V. I would absolutely not want to see something like that implemented in DBD. People should be free to use whatever they want.
-
@DerpyPlayz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1700602#Comment_1700602
Regardless, I stated my opinion.
It correlates with the topic so its not off base, so I do think it is a thought that is justified in being stated?
I personally think it is better to make a separate topic stating that opinion, since it is not constructive to OP's post of trying to offer assistance to those who wants it, but that's just me.
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1701344#Comment_1701344
So they are buffing it. Well, that's intelligent.
No. That'd be like saying "Lololol, they're buffing the strongest Killer in the game" because they're fixing/improving blink dead zones.
-
@KA149108 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1699655#Comment_1699655
Anything that's makes it so he can Mori on the spot without hooking or downing.
Solo que is hell
Judith's Tombstone is straight-up one of the weakest add-ons in the game.
-
Strong kudos to him for trying to be as fair as possible.
-
@KA149108 said:
Erm you tellin me tomb stone and infinite tier 3 ain't busted? And don't say "oh just get gens done" you can't rely on your team in solo que.
Which Tombstone we talkin' here? Tombstone Piece is strong; Judith's Tombstone is garbage.
(Also, if you can't rely on your team, that sounds like a problem with the team.)
-
@Axe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1698604#Comment_1698604
yep but then it wont get nerfed because OOO got a low pickrate and those who use it got a low escape rate.
You have convinced me to tunnel OOO users out of the game.
-
I have not had much of a chance to really follow DBD much recently. Someone wanna explain to me what's wrong with this year's halloween event? It really seems like people are rather upset with this one in particular.
-
@FFabeq said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1698135#Comment_1698135
Bruh that's better actually, it forces you to play every character if you want to level up them. And you can buy addons in the shop
That's much much much worse for me because I pretty much only play Pig.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1696011#Comment_1696011
Oh, but it does.
When you hit someone, the original blade pops in and out like you said. The drill does that too, however it stops its 'drilling' animation during the cooldown and starts drilling again afterwards. So it does change based on what is happening in game. Riiiight?
I meant change as in physically transform. Not have another animation. Apologies for not being clear on that one.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1695875#Comment_1695875
That's not what I was talking about. The original blade does not move at all nor has any special animations when you are running. The drill, though, is constantly animated and has cosmetic-specific animations, even though it was not, like you said, "part of her power". Why can't legion have the same thing?
Because the Legion's mask doesn't change at all in-game (because it was not coded to). The Pig's blade does animate in-game (because it was designed to have moving parts). Now, if the drill/electric blade thing was able to contextually change based on what was happening in-game, I'd be absolutely on your side.
-
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1695629#Comment_1695629
There was already a discussion about this. It's very easy to implement something like this.
This time I even have an example - what would you say about the Pig's drill blade? Pig's original blade is not dynamic, while the drill has an actual animation, which changes depending on a situation - it stops for a while when you hit a survivor. Why not do the same to the mask? It's all very simple programming..
@MrLimonka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1695629#Comment_1695629
There was already a discussion about this. It's very easy to implement something like this.
This time I even have an example - what would you say about the Pig's drill blade? Pig's original blade is not dynamic, while the drill has an actual animation, which changes depending on a situation - it stops for a while when you hit a survivor. Why not do the same to the mask? It's all very simple programming..
Pig's original blade already has animations to it; it can pop in and out.
-
The Legion wasn't coded to have that feature basekit. The Oni was.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
Wait... what?! What add on?!?!
Halloween event add-on for all Killers. Basically gives each Killer a one-time-use Blight Rush (the non-lethal one you can't attack with) every time they hook someone.
-
@NomiNomad said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1694775#Comment_1694775
To be fair, I think most battlepasses are poorly implemented, so I wouldn't be surprised if other games have done it worse. Doesn't change anything.
Magic Arena has the dubious distinction of capping how much progress you can make in the battlepass track in a week.
-
"You have to BUY what is by far the worst implemented Battlepass I've ever seen"
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but Magic Arena still holds the crown for me.
-
Because a one-shot is a decent payoff to aim for that can allow for multiple Killer designs built around reaching that payoff.
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
Alright, question:
You are up against trapper: do you run past a pallet trying to stun him?
You are up against clown: do you run him into a narrow area/gym corridor?
You are up against hag: do you run towards a hook/a glowing totem? Do you ignore totems?
You are up against Plague: Do you cleanse?
You are up against Pig: Do you rush gens?
"You are up against Pig: Do you rush gens?"
Yes. :P
-
I didn't get anything. I'm guessing you had to have done something in the past regarding a purchase to trigger the bug. Either that, or it may ha e already been patched.
-
If they wanted to differentiate the tiers, they should have augmented the time it takes for the aura to go away.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1686853#Comment_1686853
Quite simple.
- SWF groups will (once again) face a killer at a minimum rank equal to the highest ranked survivor in the party. This immediately crushes the majority of SWF smurfcomps and means that if they want to smurf, they all have to derank.
- SWF groups will have their matchmaking rating inflated artificially, proportional to the number of players grouped together (to counterbalance the coordination/communication advantage). Heroes of the Storm did this, and it worked pretty well.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1686855#Comment_1686855
Then why did they remove the protections against smurfing and the protections lowbie killers had against it? (Well, I know the answer - these same smurf groups started complaining about queue times and how they couldn't 'teach their lowbie friends the game, just ignore all those perks they have').
Why is deliberate killer deranking bannable, but survivor deranking isn't?
Note: survivors still have those protections. Survivors at a certain rank (I think it's yellow and below) will always be matched against a killer lower or equal to that rank. This is how the current smurfcomp works.
Again - if they were working on fixing this, why would they remove the fixes they had made - with no announcement, chance for discussion or ETA on a replacement?
SWF groups will have their matchmaking rating inflated artificially, proportional to the number of players grouped together (to counterbalance the coordination/communication advantage). Heroes of the Storm did this, and it worked pretty well.
'Ey, that's not a bad idea.
-
@Zeus said:
They added it on PTB. It'll come with mid season patch.
This thread was made several months ago, to be fair.
-
Personally, I think Ivory Moris should be nerfed too. Just being able to do it once is too much of a tempo swing IMO.
-
IMO, Flashlights are only useful if you can save a carried Survivor with it. Beyond that, I think blinding someone is 9 times out of 10 useless if the Killer is not thoroughly incompetent.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688518#Comment_1688518
"Again, not necessarily. Not if the Survivors are good enough to break chases and hide while the Killer is bad enough to consistently let that happen."
He. Caught. One. The proof that it is an eventuality is right there. So no that can't happen IF THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME.
"They are not the same thing, but the end result is the same (the Killer is unable to leave the game which is going on and on and on because the Survivors refuse to do gens). THAT is the part that matters."
So then a game where a killer is legitimately trying to kill survivors but stalls a game 30 minutes on a 3 gen is holding the game hostage. Which is not true. This is where this lack of distinction leads, therefore that logic is flawed.
He. Caught. One. The proof that it is an eventuality is right there. So no that can't happen IF THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME.
That's not proof that it is an eventuality. Otherwise, I could say that finding someone hiding is an eventuality because I eventually found someone after half an hour.
So then a game where a killer is legitimately trying to kill survivors but stalls a game 30 minutes on a 3 gen is holding the game hostage. Which is not true. This is where this lack of distinction leads, therefore that logic is flawed.
No, because the Killer is not refusing to complete their objective of killing Survivors.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688494#Comment_1688494
"That's just the Survivors being more skilled at avoiding being detected than the Killer at successfully detecting them, no? Same thing as being more skilled at prolonging the chase than the Killer at ending it."
No because killer will catch a survivor EVENTUALLY. There is proof in the video itself, he caught one and killed them. It took 30 minutes but he did it. You can't say the same for hiding. You can't say that on a long enough timeline the killer WILL find a survivor. They MIGHT find a survivor and that's different. If all the guy in the video did was follow one of them and broke pallets, he would have caught one eventually via bloodlust.
"Fair, let me rephrase myself. The act of chasing fundamentally requires input from both players whereas the act of working a gen does not necessarily require input from the Killer (though the Killer can attempt to disrupt the process)."
Saying a chase requires both players doesn't acknowledge the fact it is a back and forth, just like doing gens. Both have a back and forth. If there is no back, the forth can still win.
"That's exactly how you gauge whether Survivors are hostage holding by hiding. You have to use your best judgement to decide if the amount of time spent doing this was reasonable or not. If they attempt to do it but are found after two minutes, you can't say that they held the game hostage. It's not an exact science."
Again to make clear, HIDING AND CHASE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If you hide and do nothing that is a hostage situation because the killer literally has no opportunity to do anything (unless they have Whispers or are Doc or something). If you run around in the killers face but still do nothing, well there is plenty of opportunity for the killer to catch you. Do you see the distinction now? They are not the same thing. These little details matter.
No because killer will catch a survivor EVENTUALLY. There is proof in the video itself, he caught one and killed them. It took 30 minutes but he did it. You can't say the same for hiding. You can't say that on a long enough timeline the killer WILL find a survivor. They MIGHT find a survivor and that's different. If all the guy in the video did was follow one of them and broke pallets, he would have caught one eventually via bloodlust.
Again, not necessarily. Not if the Survivors are good enough to break chases and hide while the Killer is bad enough to consistently let that happen.
Saying a chase requires both players doesn't acknowledge the fact it is a back and forth, just like doing gens. Both have a back and forth. If there is no back, the forth can still win.
The chase is fundamentally back and forth. If the Survivor is not doing anything, there is no chase. Doing a gen is not fundamentally back and forth. It CAN be, but it is not necessary for the thing to happen.
Again to make clear, HIDING AND CHASE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If you hide and do nothing that is a hostage situation because the killer literally has no opportunity to do anything (unless they have Whispers or are Doc or something). If you run around in the killers face but still do nothing, well there is plenty of opportunity for the killer to catch you. Do you see the distinction now? They are not the same thing. These little details matter.
They are not the same thing, but the end result is the same (the Killer is unable to leave the game which is going on and on and on because the Survivors refuse to do gens). THAT is the part that matters.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688471#Comment_1688471
"whereas catching a Survivor requires action from both Survivor and Killer"
No, catching a survivor requires action only from the killer. AVOIDING the killer requires action from the survivor. The opposite of that generators require actions from survivors and STOPPING gens takes action from the killer.
"Yes you can? You can fail at it because the Survivors are very good at hiding, but you can certainly attempt it."
No you can't. Because survivors can hide from your eyes and ears. They cannot hide from Whispers (though they can make it more difficult to find them, if you have Whispers you will 100% find a survivor at some point). They also cannot hide from Doc mostly but since you can get in a locker it's a bit more grey.
"Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point."
No the point was that there was no way the killer could actively end the game (again a survivor outside the map). "Extended the game past a reasonable point" is very fishy and could be applied to a LOT of situations that were not actually hostage situations. Again take your 3 gen, the killer could be legitimately trying to kill a survivor but doing it in a way to position themselves to kill more than 1 survivor. If there are 4 survivors and the killer defends a 3 gen for 30 minutes but they eventually do the gen and escape, that's not a hostage situation. Unless we apply your logic.
"No, catching a survivor requires action only from the killer. AVOIDING the killer requires action from the survivor. The opposite of that generators require actions from survivors and STOPPING gens takes action from the killer."
Fair, let me rephrase myself. The act of chasing fundamentally requires input from both players whereas the act of working a gen does not necessarily require input from the Killer (though the Killer can attempt to disrupt the process).
No you can't. Because survivors can hide from your eyes and ears. They cannot hide from Whispers (though they can make it more difficult to find them, if you have Whispers you will 100% find a survivor at some point). They also cannot hide from Doc mostly but since you can get in a locker it's a bit more grey.
That's just the Survivors being more skilled at avoiding being detected than the Killer at successfully detecting them, no? Same thing as being more skilled at prolonging the chase than the Killer at ending it.
No the point was that there was no way the killer could actively end the game (again a survivor outside the map).
The Killer cannot actively end the game if they cannot catch a Survivor without DCing. If the Killer is to straight-up surrender to the Killers, what option do they have?
"Extended the game past a reasonable point" is very fishy and could be applied to a LOT of situations that were not actually hostage situations.
That's exactly how you gauge whether Survivors are hostage holding by hiding. You have to use your best judgement to decide if the amount of time spent doing this was reasonable or not. If they attempt to do it but are found after two minutes, you can't say that they held the game hostage. It's not an exact science.
f there are 4 survivors and the killer defends a 3 gen for 30 minutes but they eventually do the gen and escape, that's not a hostage situation. Unless we apply your logic.
That EXACT logic is what is used for hiding indefinitely. If the last two Survivors hide for 30 minutes, but the Killer eventually finds and kills one, allowing the hatch to come into play, that would not be a hostage situation by your logic.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688451#Comment_1688451
"Here's the question: Is the Killer meaningfully preventing the Survivor from completing their objective (while also being unwilling to finish their objective)? If yes, then hostage holding. If no, then not hostage holding."
But then if the survivors have full opportunity to do the gens and don't, it's not a hostage situation. Just like if the killer has full opportunity to catch them (WHICH HE CAUGHT ONE, no one has acknowledged this yet still waiting), then it's not a hostage situation.
"Disagree. They can use eyesight and thorough searching to eventually find a Survivor."
Except you can't. You physically can't, because survivors can move and because there are things to hide behind. Your statement would only be true if the map was a giant open plane with nothing to hide behind and survivors could not move if the killer was around or something.
But then if the survivors have full opportunity to do the gens and don't, it's not a hostage situation. Just like if the killer has full opportunity to catch them (WHICH HE CAUGHT ONE, no one has acknowledged this yet still waiting), then it's not a hostage situation.
The difference is that doing gens only requires action from the Survivor whereas catching a Survivor requires action from both Survivor and Killer (the Killer has to catch while the Survivor has to avoid being caught). A Survivor either does the gen or does not; they don't try and fail (even if they miss EVERY skill check). A Killer either tries and succeeds in catching a Survivor, tries and fails in catching a Survivor, or simply does not try to catch the Survivor. If a Killer succeeds, obviously it is not hostage taking. The second one depends on whether the Survivors are progressing toward the end of the game, and the third one can be the Killer hostage holding depending on the circumstances. Also:
"(WHICH HE CAUGHT ONE, no one has acknowledged this yet still waiting)"
I did, with the response below:
Same reason why it doesn't matter when a Killer does eventually find one or more Survivors who have been hiding for a super long time. Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point.
Except you can't. You physically can't, because survivors can move and because there are things to hide behind. Your statement would only be true if the map was a giant open plane with nothing to hide behind and survivors could not move if the killer was around or something.
Yes you can? You can fail at it because the Survivors are very good at hiding, but you can certainly attempt it.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688441#Comment_1688441
The difference with a 3 gen is that there may be no opportunities for survivors to end the game. If there are 2 survivors and all 3 gens are in line of sight, then yes it is holding the game hostage because there is no opportunity. If there are 4 survivors then there is always an opportunity to do a gen, as all you need to do is split up and force the killer to commit to something. When they don't, EVENTUALLY you will do a gen and power the door.
"Not true. Otherwise, it can very much be argued that the Killer has an opportunity to find the Survivors that are trying to hide indefinitely and that not being able to do so is just not succeeding in doing so."
You are equating opportunity with probability. There is no opportunity the killer finds a survivor, there is a probability they will. They can't act on anything to find the survivor. However, if the killer has Whispers or Spies or is a Doctor or maybe Demo or something, then there IS opportunity to find a survivor and thus hiding and not doing gens would not be holding the game hostage.
And to be clear, I'm not saying this man wasn't griefed. HE WAS. I'm saying what happened to him is not a hostage situation.
The difference with a 3 gen is that there may be no opportunities for survivors to end the game. If there are 2 survivors and all 3 gens are in line of sight, then yes it is holding the game hostage because there is no opportunity. If there are 4 survivors then there is always an opportunity to do a gen, as all you need to do is split up and force the killer to commit to something. When they don't, EVENTUALLY you will do a gen and power the door.
Here's the question: Is the Killer meaningfully preventing the Survivor from completing their objective (while also being unwilling to finish their objective)? If yes, then hostage holding. If no, then not hostage holding.
You are equating opportunity with probability. There is no opportunity the killer finds a survivor, there is a probability they will. They can't act on anything to find the survivor. However, if the killer has Whispers or Spies or is a Doctor or maybe Demo or something, then there IS opportunity to find a survivor and thus hiding and not doing gens would not be holding the game hostage.
Disagree. They can use eyesight and thorough searching to eventually find a Survivor.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688428#Comment_1688428
"If Scott was actively guarding gens and keeping them from being done but not downing + hooking anyone himself, that would be hostage holding."
So if he just walks around, hits a survivor and kicks the gen, and then never do gens because they are so bad at the game this is all it takes to stop them, he is holding the game hostage? That makes zero sense. Being bad at the game does not make it a hostage situation. Survivors can do the gens, they just lack the skill to do it. The opportunity is there. Just like the opportunity was there for the OP to catch these survivors. Him being bad doesn't change what would be the normal flow of the game into a hostage situation.
"What? That's exactly how you measure whether Survivors are holding the game hostage."
No you measure whether it is a hostage game based on the opportunities for one side to end the game. If there are zero opportunities (eg. a survivor is outside the normal map and cannot be caught) then it's a hostage situation. If the opportunity is still there then it's not a hostage situation. OP had the opportunities, which is the key distinction in whether or not it was a hostage situation.
So if he just walks around, hits a survivor and kicks the gen, and then never do gens because they are so bad at the game this is all it takes to stop them, he is holding the game hostage?
If he is actively guarding gens and preventing them from being done but not ending the game himself, then yes. If he is just arbitrarily chasing people at random and other Survivors are just being laggy in doing gens, then no. I recall reading about Killers being banned for playing "get off mah lawn" with a 3-gen situation by protecting the gens at all costs but not bothering to down anyone. So it can happen if the situation lines up properly.
No you measure whether it is a hostage game based on the opportunities for one side to end the game. If there are zero opportunities (eg. a survivor is outside the normal map and cannot be caught) then it's a hostage situation. If the opportunity is still there then it's not a hostage situation. OP had the opportunities, which is the key distinction in whether or not it was a hostage situation.
Not true. Otherwise, it can very much be argued that the Killer has an opportunity to find the Survivors that are trying to hide indefinitely and that not being able to do so is just not succeeding in doing so.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688414#Comment_1688414
Look your logic doesn't work when applied equally to all situations. If what Scott was doing wasn't hostage but what these survivors were doing was that is hypocrisy. It is the exact same situation just with the roles reverse.
And he was preventing them from doing gens by chasing them. Is it now the killer's fault they were so bad that's all the pressure you need to put on them to make them not do gens?
"Gens were not being done because the Killer was making a lot of mistakes?"
No survivors were not being killer because of killer mistakes. Killers are not responsible for doing gens therefore you can't measure whether a game was hostage or not based solely on the survivor's inability or unwillingness to do a gen.
Nothing you say will convince me this was a hostage situation, especially not flawed hypocritical logic.
Look your logic doesn't work when applied equally to all situations. If what Scott was doing wasn't hostage but what these survivors were doing was that is hypocrisy. It is the exact same situation just with the roles reverse.
If Scott was actively guarding gens and keeping them from being done but not downing + hooking anyone himself, that would be hostage holding.
And he was preventing them from doing gens by chasing them. Is it now the killer's fault they were so bad that's all the pressure you need to put on them to make them not do gens?
See above.
Killers are not responsible for doing gens therefore you can't measure whether a game was hostage or not based solely on the survivor's inability or unwillingness to do a gen.
What? That's exactly how you measure whether Survivors are holding the game hostage.
Nothing you say will convince me this was a hostage situation, especially not flawed hypocritical logic.
Red crayon is still red no matter how much you are convinced it's blue.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688396#Comment_1688396
But they were failing at doing gens. It doesn't matter if he was preventing them or not, they lacked the skill to do them. By your logic he was holding the game hostage for the same reason these survivors held the game hostage.
And now you're saying that a survivor has to let the killer catch them or it's holding the game hostage. Because by running you are preventing the killer from doing their objective.
"Then why is the game still going on? Why has the game not ended?"
Because the killer was bad and made a lot of mistakes, which is not a hostage situation.
Look the HUGE difference between hiding and not doing gens and getting chased and not doing gens is that the second WILL END EVENTUALLY just by the very mechanics of the game. Eventually, with killers being faster than survivors, and with bloodlust, the killer will catch up and get a hit. That means EVENTUALLY they will get a down, and then a hook. Rinse repeat 3 more times. Game is now over. But when survivors hide and don't do gens there is no EVENTUALLY the killer finds them. MAYBE they find them. MAYBE is not the same as EVENTUALLY. The latter is guaranteed to happen, the former is not.
It doesn't matter if he was preventing them or not
It does matter. It is actually the key of the whole matter. One party is unwilling to bring the game to a close while preventing the other party from bringing the game to a close.
And now you're saying that a survivor has to let the killer catch them or it's holding the game hostage. Because by running you are preventing the killer from doing their objective.
Not by itself, no. It requires a combination of both actively and intentionally preventing one side from ending the game AND an unwillingness to bring the game to a close yourself. The end result is a deliberate act of dragging the game on way past a reasonable point. If the Survivor is not handing themselves to the Killer on a silver platter and the Killer is too potato to catch them, it is not hostage holding if they are doing gens and bringing the game to a close. If the Survivors are not doing gens but the Killer is not doing anything to chase them, then the game is also not hostage holding.
Because the killer was bad and made a lot of mistakes, which is not a hostage situation.
Gens were not being done because the Killer was making a lot of mistakes?
Eventually, with killers being faster than survivors, and with bloodlust, the killer will catch up and get a hit.
Very good Survivors (using Blendettes, let's say) + very bad Killer = Survivor can escape a chase and prevent Bloodlust from triggering
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688369#Comment_1688369
Scott Jund made a video before they turned off the MMR showing him against literal rank 20 brand new players to the game. He would chase them but refused to down or hook anyone. They took 20 minutes or something to do like 2 gens. Was Scott holding the game hostage?
If he was, then that means anytime a player refuses to even do an objective they are delaying the game and holding it hostage. Obviously if you play tactically but take a minute to touch a gen you aren't holding the game hostage, but that's where that logic would go.
If he was not then any instance where a player is simply bad and the game is delayed is NOT a hostage situation.
You can sit here and say he was bullied or griefed, I would agree. But taken hostage? NO. That is a very clear and specific thing, of which the requirements were not actually met since he could have, in theory, still ended the game he just lacked the ability to execute it. But if the situation was that some survivors got out of the map and he couldn't get to them, THEN it is holding the game hostage because regardless of his skill or ability to execute the end of the game there is nothing that can be done.
He would chase them but refused to down or hook anyone. They took 20 minutes or something to do like 2 gens. Was Scott holding the game hostage?
No, because he was not preventing them from doing gens.
If he was not then any instance where a player is simply bad and the game is delayed is NOT a hostage situation.
Unless the Survivors were actively not stopping the Killer from downing them and letting the Killer down them with ease, then not true.
That is a very clear and specific thing, of which the requirements were not actually met since he could have, in theory, still ended the game he just lacked the ability to execute it.
I shall once again equate this with the situation of Survivors indefinitely hiding and the Killer "lacking the ability" to find them.
Also, I ask again: "Then why is the game still going on? Why has the game not ended?"
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688353#Comment_1688353
"So no, I will continue to equate the two as equivalent offenses."
Then you are making a false equivalency.
"Being bad at the game is irrelevant."
No it's not. If one side is not good enough that doesn't mean the other side was holding them hostage. You have it backwards. You have to remove skill from the equation. If it is literally impossible to end the game even for the absolute best player in the world, then it would be a hostage situation. Again would an AFK killer be holding the game hostage if survivors were SOOOOOOOO bad at the game they couldn't even complete a gen? Obviously not.
"Not necessarily. Not if the Killer is bad enough."
Yes even if the killer is bad enough. Just follow them, eventually you will catch up. If they drop a pallet break it. Eventually you will use every pallet. EVENTUALLY you will catch them. Just by following them.
"It actually does, though."
No it doesn't. Being bad at the game doesn't change the definition of a term or change the way the rules are applied.
"How is the game being held hostage if gens are being done?"
How is the game being held hostage if you are constantly getting chase by the killer? Your logic doesn't work when applied to similar situations.
"And that very specific situation is "Holding the game hostage means the game is not ending and is deliberately being dragged out by one party past a reasonable point, with the other person being incapable of ending the game even though they want to without having to DC." It's why indefinite body blocking is hostage holding if the hatch is still open, but not if it's closed."
Yea because when you body block someone it doesn't matter how good they are, they can't end the game if they wanted to. That little detail of "hatch is closed" changes the entire thing, just like the little detail of "killer is bad" changes everything.
You can keep repeating yourself, it won't suddenly make it a hostage situation. The mere fact he killed one disproves this idea entirely.
Then you are making a false equivalency.
Disagree.
If one side is not good enough that doesn't mean the other side was holding them hostage.
Then why is the game still going on? Why has the game not ended? I believe it is you who has it backwards.
Again would an AFK killer be holding the game hostage if survivors were SOOOOOOOO bad at the game they couldn't even complete a gen?
The Killer is not preventing the Survivor from finishing the gens, so no (though again, being AFK is a reportable offense). The Survivors ARE actively working to keep the Killer from catching them (for that is the point of the chase) while ALSO deliberately choosing not to do gens.
Yes even if the killer is bad enough. Just follow them, eventually you will catch up. If they drop a pallet break it. Eventually you will use every pallet. EVENTUALLY you will catch them. Just by following them.
And if the Survivors are able to consistently give the Killer the slip because the Killer is bad?
No it doesn't. Being bad at the game doesn't change the definition of a term or change the way the rules are applied.
This I agree with. Hostage holding doesn't factor in skill; only if one party is refusing to end the game and the other party is incapable of doing so without DCing.
How is the game being held hostage if you are constantly getting chase by the killer? Your logic doesn't work when applied to similar situations.
Because the Killer wants to leave the game (without DCing) but cannot because they cannot catch the Survivors and the Survivors are not finishing the gens. If the gens are finished, it is a completely different story because the Killer can just force the gates open and force-start the EGC.
Yea because when you body block someone it doesn't matter how good they are, they can't end the game if they wanted to. That little detail of "hatch is closed" changes the entire thing, just like the little detail of "killer is bad" changes everything.
No it does not. The reason "hatch is closed" changes the entire thing is that hatch being closed means the game WILL end. Not so for the "killer is bad" bit.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688322#Comment_1688322
"People arguing that hiding forever is a-okay have said the exact same thing. Shouldn't apply there; shouldn't apply here."
I've already pointed out how they are different and how hiding IS holding the game hostage. Stop lumping me in with those people.
"The game literally tells them what to press, so that argument goes out the window. Plus, going AFK is a reportable offense according to the game itself, so..."
Doesn't matter, being bad at the game does NOT mean you were held hostage.
"It doesn't matter if the Killer eventually finds the hiding Survivor after 30+ minutes. It's still hostage holding."
The difference is that in a chase the killer is GUARANTEED to catch you eventually. They aren't guaranteed to find you if you hide.
"The definition of holding the game hostage does not include player skill."
Just like the definition doesn't include making poor decisions that end up delaying the end of the game. Or else anytime a killer gets outplayed you could say "that's holding the game hostage".
No matter how many times you want to repeat the same thing, BEING BAD AT THE GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT A HOSTAGE SITUATION. A hostage situation is a VERY SPECIFIC thing in this game. It's a point where no matter HOW GOOD YOU ARE, you can literally not end the game. Case and point, killer body blocking survivor in a corner or a survivor getting into an area the killer cannot get them. Those are 100% hostage situations.
I've already pointed out how they are different and how hiding IS holding the game hostage. Stop lumping me in with those people.
Both still result in one side (in this case, the Killer) being kept in the game against their will and being unable to leave without DCing. So no, I will continue to equate the two as equivalent offenses.
Doesn't matter, being bad at the game does NOT mean you were held hostage.
Being bad at the game is irrelevant. If you are unable to leave without DCing and the other side refuses to finish their goal and chooses to prolong things, it is hostage holding.
The difference is that in a chase the killer is GUARANTEED to catch you eventually.
Not necessarily. Not if the Killer is bad enough.
Just like the definition doesn't include making poor decisions that end up delaying the end of the game.
It actually does, though. Choosing not to do gens and hide forever is a poor decision that ends up delaying the game.
Or else anytime a killer gets outplayed you could say "that's holding the game hostage".
That doesn't make sense. How is the game being held hostage if gens are being done?
No matter how many times you want to repeat the same thing, BEING BAD AT THE GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT A HOSTAGE SITUATION. A hostage situation is a VERY SPECIFIC thing in this game. It's a point where no matter HOW GOOD YOU ARE, you can literally not end the game. Case and point, killer body blocking survivor in a corner or a survivor getting into an area the killer cannot get them. Those are 100% hostage situations.
And that very specific situation is "Holding the game hostage means the game is not ending and is deliberately being dragged out by one party past a reasonable point, with the other person being incapable of ending the game even though they want to without having to DC." It's why indefinite body blocking is hostage holding if the hatch is still open, but not if it's closed and the EGC has started.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688302#Comment_1688302
"Not necessarily. Suppose the Killer is very bad and can't maintain a chase for the life of them."
This is not the fault of anyone but the killer.
Imagine if the killer goes AFK but the survivor is SOOO bad at the game they don't even know what button to press to do a gen. Is the killer holding the game hostage? No.
Now imagine there is only 1 gen that can be done, and it can only be done by 1 person, but the killer stands where they need to stand to do the gen and goes AFK. THAT is a hostage situation because the inability to end the game is completely independent of the player's skill. You could literally be able to hit great skill checks with your eyes closed and no sound and you could STILL not do the gen and end the game.
THAT is the difference.
"If I give my controller to my friend who barely knows how to play, will they be able to catch a team who opts not to do gens and is able to do chases like a boss?"
If they are running around in front of him like that, yes, eventually he will catch them. It would obviously take a LONG time but it can be done.
If someone is bad at the game that doesn't make it a hostage situation.
This is not the fault of anyone but the killer.
People arguing that hiding forever is a-okay have said the exact same thing. Shouldn't apply there; shouldn't apply here.
Imagine if the killer goes AFK but the survivor is SOOO bad at the game they don't even know what button to press to do a gen. Is the killer holding the game hostage? No.
The game literally tells them what to press, so that argument goes out the window. Plus, going AFK is a reportable offense according to the game itself, so...
It would obviously take a LONG time but it can be done.
It doesn't matter if the Killer eventually finds the hiding Survivor after 30+ minutes. It's still hostage holding.
If someone is bad at the game that doesn't make it a hostage situation.
The definition of holding the game hostage does not include player skill.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688294#Comment_1688294
"Again, this logic could apply to the situation where Survivors don't do gens and hide indefinitely. But the devs consider it hostage holding anyways. Same could apply here."
No it can't because unless the killer has Whispers they can never find you if you hide perfectly. You could run perfectly from a killer for a long time but the game is designed for them to eventually catch you. Once all the pallets are gone and he has bloodlust 3 he should be getting a hit guaranteed. You can't say the same thing about someone hiding because they aren't using resources and there is nothing giving the killer more and more of a chance to catch them over time.
"Same reason why it doesn't matter when a Killer does eventually find one or more Survivors who have been hiding for a super long time. Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point."
You might not eventually find them though. If you follow a survivor eventually you WILL get a hit. 100% guaranteed, IDC how bad you are (proof by the OP video themselves, they EVENTUALLY get hits and downs, it's just they make very bad decisions once they do and lose all that pressure), just follow with no mind games and no respect to pallets. Over a long enough period you WILL get them. Over a long enough period, no you are not given the same guarantee to find a survivor.
Once all the pallets are gone and he has bloodlust 3 he should be getting a hit guaranteed.
Not necessarily. Suppose the Killer is very bad and can't maintain a chase for the life of them. Survivors are good at breaking the chase and giving the Killer the slip. If the Killer skill is not enough to allow them to catch the Survivors and the Survivors are unwilling to finish the gens, what exactly enables the Killer to end the game in a reasonable time?
You might not eventually find them though. If you follow a survivor eventually you WILL get a hit. 100% guaranteed, IDC how bad you are, just follow with no mind games and no respect to pallets. Over a long enough period you WILL get them. Over a long enough period, no you are not given the same guarantee to find a survivor.
If I give my controller to my friend who barely knows how to play, will they be able to catch a team who opts not to do gens and is able to do chases like a boss?
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1688280#Comment_1688280
No holding the game hostage means that the game literally cannot end no matter what another player does. Being less skilled than your opponent and getting bullied is NOT a hostage situation because you could in theory do something about that.
Body blocking a survivor in a corner, or a survivor getting to a spot where the killer can't get them is a hostage situation because it doesn't matter what the other side does or how good they are, the game can never end. You could be Otz or the OP it doesn't matter.
Again it sucks what happened to this guy but it's not a hostage situation. He had opportunities to end the game, he just failed at it.
ALSO HE KILLED A SURVIVOR.
Why do y'all keep ignoring this very important part?
Being less skilled than your opponent and getting bullied is NOT a hostage situation because you could in theory do something about that.
Again, this logic could apply to the situation where Survivors don't do gens and hide indefinitely. But the devs consider it hostage holding anyways. Same could apply here.
ALSO HE KILLED A SURVIVOR.
Why do y'all keep ignoring this very important part?
Same reason why it doesn't matter when a Killer does eventually find one or more Survivors who have been hiding for a super long time. Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1687988#Comment_1687988
Hiding and not doing gens is WAY different from everyone running around right in front of the killer not doing gens.
The first scenario there is actually nothing happening in the game, not gens not chases not hits not kills. Therefore it is a hostage situation.
The second scenario stuff is happening, chases and hits (and he got a kill don't forget). Therefore it is NOT a hostage situation.
Also by my definition, if one side goes AFK and the OTHER side still cannot do something to end the game THAT is a hostage situation, eg. bodyblocking a survivor in a corner or a survivor glitching into an area the killer can never reach. If the survivors went AFK he could just kill them, and if he went AFK they could do gens (even though they didn't they COULD do it).
Being bad at the game isn't a hostage situation. Sorry no matter how you sugar coat it, that's what is going on here.
Holding the game hostage doesn't mean that nothing is happening in the game. Holding the game hostage means the game is not ending and is deliberately being dragged out by one party past a reasonable point, with the other person being incapable of ending the game even though they want to without having to DC.
Being bad at the game isn't a hostage situation.
This is the exact logic used by people trying to argue that Survivors hiding indefinitely and not doing gens is not a hostage situation. The counterargument (that being trapped inside a game with no way to leave except via DC should not hinge on someone being "skilled enough" to make that happen) can arguably apply here too.
-
@DanPie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1687999#Comment_1687999
must be some intense drugs youre on, whats the 4th perk you run then lol?
Currently it is Surge, as it lets me kinda slow down gens without having to skip a beat.