Terratoast
Terratoast
About
- Username
- Terratoast
- Joined
- Visits
- 22
- Last Active
Comments
-
Third-person for killer would be a major buff and would force the developers to balance around it. Which would, in turn, force everyone to "choose" third-person over first person. A lot of the game's charm would be lost if the killer is able to view the world from a perspective other than their model. No more hiding near the killer but behind a wall. No more sneaking behind the killer. No more basing your movement off of the killer's sight direction.
This would pretty much kill any and all stealth gameplay
-
It would likely depend on how much the Epic Games launcher gains in user-base. Because right now, even with Fortnite, Steam likely just rolls over any and all other methods of advertisement. Out of all my launchers that I have for my various games (Epic Games, Origins, Blizzard, etc), Steam is likely my most visited launcher by at least 10x all of my other launchers combined.
-
@BACKSTABBER said:
@Terratoast said:
The only thing that needs to happen when we hit a lot of perks is how quickly we should be able to unlock said perks, otherwise it's pretty intimidating to new players.But adding additional perk slots should be done with extreme care. More perks means more opportunities for synergies to be overpowered.
We're nowhere close to the "122" number OP is throwing around so either way it's not a problem any time soon.
choose 4 dude and leave 118, pretty much will use among the top 20 perks and ignore the rest
with more slots you can do more creative builds, cooler decisions, better experience, weaker perks
I love how you just casually ignored my argument just so you can restate your own.
Finding it difficult to pick which 4 perks is the point. Picking 5 out of the 20 most powerful perks instead of 4 out of the most powerful perks decreases the diversity. More perk slots means less reason to choose, you can just take all the perks that you want rather than focusing on a certain playstyle and trimming the fat that you don't need in your build.
I'm still not sure why you're continuing to use that number when the game currently only has 59 survivor perks and 54 killer. Given that we get 3 perks on each expansion you're looking at 21 more expansion until then. Considering that there have been only the equivalent of 12 expansion since the start of the game there is no reason to even consider perk over-saturation right now or even in the next 12 months.
-
The only thing that needs to happen when we hit a lot of perks is how quickly we should be able to unlock said perks, otherwise it's pretty intimidating to new players.
But adding additional perk slots should be done with extreme care. More perks means more opportunities for synergies to be overpowered.
We're nowhere close to the "122" number OP is throwing around so either way it's not a problem any time soon.
-
@Visionmaker said:
My fault. I didn't think anyone actually took his post seriously.
Although I responded with the prior knowledge that OP only made this troll-suggestion to vent about the BT buff.
Probably my bad as well. I tend to take things at face value because no matter how much some things seem like trolling, there is always someone out there who honestly has that opinion. I need to be more cynical sometimes.
-
@Visionmaker said:
@Terratoast said:
Yes. But it also buffs many other situations where the survivor shouldn't get the free unhook.For the record, it's not a free hook. It's an unhook coupled with a perk designed to allow unsafe hooks.
Your argument should be framed with the fact that the survivors are deliberately running a perk that complements risky unhooks.
I thought that the comment I responded to was in direct reference to the OP's suggestion (which was a blanket change regardless of perk being run), not the upcoming BT change. I have mixed feelings about the BT change but it wasn't what I was referring to.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
This change ONLY affects bad campers & tunnelers, which I’m fine with because I’m competent enough to play the game without using those tactics.All this change does is buff unsafe unhooks. Does this make malicious camping harder? Yes. But it also buffs many other situations where the survivor shouldn't get the free unhook.
If I see/hear someone (as I'm hooking someone) just itching for me to turn away for more than half a second so that they can get a quick and easy unhook you bet I'm going to walk away for a moment only to turn right back around to see if they fall for my bait. That's their fault at that point, they failed to wait until I'm preoccupied with something else or until I was too far away.
In another situation, if I'm chasing someone who ends up bee-lining it to unhook someone, should that survivor get a free unhook? No. They are doubly at fault at that point because they are not only guaranteeing a free hit if they attempt to unhook, they are also making it extremely difficult for any other survivor to take advantage over me chasing someone to rescue the one on the hook.
-
@Nickenzie said:
It's in JavaScript, it's a programming language.Javascript doesn't declare datatypes.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@SenzuDuckHow often does this scenario actually happen, where you need to body block someone for an entire hook death?
It isn't about how often it would happen, but about whether a killer should be allowed to do so.
If yes, then that killer shouldn't be punished by the script changes we'd implement.
But if the killer is bodyblocking to only prevent a survivor from reaching the hook for a rescue it's not holding the game hostage. The bodyblocking is being done to end the game.
As for your code suggestion;
Some problems with the code itself.
- Don't bother multiplying dT by 1, just += the dt.
- You didn't multiply by dt when you were subtracting 1 for moments where the player is not colliding with the killer. But like before, just subtract the dt.
- You didn't declare bodyblockTimer, shame on you.
And there is a possible exploit involved with such a process. A survivor that's hugging the killer (such as constantly dodging hits or just mashing their face into the killer's backside while sneaking unnoticed) can build up the bodyblockTimer enough to trigger the no-collision without it being a situation where the killer was taking the game hostage.
-
So what would be considered a "crutch"? If it's anything that someone considers powerful, wouldn't killer choice also be considered a "crutch" if you pick a high tier killer?
-
Some people will look for anything and everything to blame for the loss, other than themselves of course.
If it's something that helped you kill them or delay the game, it's a crutch and you're a bad killer for using it.
-
When I 'gg', I usually add in 'gl on your next game' to avoid the problem where they assume my statement was made with sarcasm.
If they still assume I'm being sarcastic after that there's probably nothing positive that I could say that they wouldn't take as sarcastic. That's their fault, not mine.
-
The issue is, how do you punish camping with the intent of spiting someone and not punish camping with the intent of capitalizing on survivors who are being extremely altruistic?
I don't think that you can. So yeah, it sucks when you're the survivor that gets camped. But the counter remains the same and is already extremely effective for the team. Do the gens. Your task as a survivor to make sure you're not camped is to make sure you're as un-tasty a target as possible. Force the killer to chase someone else or lose tons of time chasing you through the various obstacles.
With that line of reasoning I think survivors should be getting more blood points from getting chased (maybe a boost to survival while being chased?), since they have very little choice to do anything else other than flee. Or dead survivors retroactively get a blood point reward if their team ends up escaping to acknowledge their contribution to the team for keeping the killer so busy, be it getting camped or keeping the killer chasing them.
-
@The_Daydreamer said:
@Terratoast said:
Your original post doesn't really have much to discuss. You made a statement that you will break the rules in response to killer camping your friend(s).So.... what kind of discussion are you looking for?
Cutie, I am not the one who made that thread. Please look again, you are talking to the wrong person.
Mb, I'll correct the post. But the point still stands. There's little to discuss.
-
@The_Daydreamer said:
@ConsoleNurse said:
Why i must do gens if i am alone,3 killed survivor instantly with 5 gens? I refuse to do gens and i wanna explore the map.How is this bannable?Its not your job to explore the map. If you want to do that, then go to KYF. ( Btw your team has to be ######### if they die that fast)
Could you guys came back to earth and talk about the actual topic? Thanks.
The original post doesn't really have much to discuss. It's a statement that they will break the rules in response to killer camping friend(s).
So.... what kind of discussion are you looking for?
-
Seems a tad overpowered and going in the wrong direction of what the killer is designed to do (frenzy hit a lot of people rather than tunneling down one survivor).
The devs clearly wanted to make a killer that is encouraged to quickly change targets on chases, so any sort of buff or change to the killer should reinforce that style of play.
My personal buff I would hand out (if one is actually needed) would be something along the lines of,
Survivors brought to the Bleedout state multiple times (from the not-bleedout state) bleedout faster and faster (until a certain point). Which would encourage the killer to get as many survivors to the bleedout state to build "bleedout" stacks on them, rather than just chasing a single survivor.
-
@BACKSTABBER said:
Breakdown: Any time you are removed from a hook (escaped or saved), the hook breaks and the Killer's aura is shown to you.Anti-facecamping build: borrowed time + breakdown + deliverance + resilience
BTW so many good perks now that it is too difficult to build with just 4 slots, we should need at least 5 or 6
Having more good perks than there are slots is a good place for the game to be in. It makes jack-of-all-trades survivors much less useful at any one thing than survivors that build their perks around a specific playstyle.
-
Though thinking on it, my suggestion might make farming games more common. And I feel like that's against the spirit of the game.
-
@Carpemortum said:
I misread I think. You mean % of games to be won affected by character level?I was thinking along the lines of (if I were to be using my numbers in the OP)
rank 1: 1.25x BP and XP gain
rank 20: 0.8x BP and XP gain -
@Carpemortum said:
I like it. If it's the same for both sides I assume?It's not broken like permanent x2, but would make people want to stay at and FIGHT for their rank. Thus granting rewards to those deserving and not trolling for them.
It also isnt tied to devotion or prestige, so you couldnt still passively or troll to earn.
I'm not going to agree 100% with the numbers, but I dont have others in mind. They would probably need some testing or tweaking, but it's a good starting point.
Yes, both sides.
The numbers I just tossed out there. I didn't want to make any benefit rival any special BP event that could happen and I thought that only having the multiplier go into positives would speed up the grind too much.
Maybe if you maintain rank 1 for a x% of games with so many games required per week, or season, you could earn iridescent shards? Those can be used in cosmetics, and while I dont expect them to grant 20$ worth of them, maybe 3/4k, increasing by 1k per month you hold it up to a cap? More than you get by leveling for the time required, but not enough to mitigate their auric cell purchases, if that makes sense?
Rather than that, just make the % also apply to character level, that would indirectly effect shard gain.