TrAiNwReCk
TrAiNwReCk
About
- Username
- TrAiNwReCk
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Depends on your play style perhaps.
- SB - Stay out of trouble
- DH - Plan on getting into trouble
My opinion there are more uses for SB. The situation needs to be right for DH to be useful, less you want to DH to nothing and stay up for 1-2 more seconds longer.
Edit: There are more actual uses for DH in specific instances, but SB can be for fight or flight which you will find yourself in more times than cases for DH.
-
@Delfador said:
@TrAiNwReCkThe mistake you are making is that your win condition is just like any other game that is not asymmetrical.
There is a huge problem with 4k=win, not 4k=loss condition for this game.
Any sane person would say that the balance will be achieved when each side has 50% win rate. As a killer, if you have better win rate, you also rank up and considered to be a good killer just like LoL. If you can win more than half of your matches, you are good. Then what happens if you don't win as a killer?
You get 3k for example.
If in 50 matches you get 4k and in another 50 matches you get 3k, you have 50% winrate according to your logic. Good, seems balanced but then you take a look at the survivor side, out of 400 survivors that played against you, only 50 of them won the match. Their win rate is something like 12.5%. Where is the balance for survivors?
Your logic applies to deathgarden. If the killer can stop runners and kill them, he wins but if he can't, even if some of the survivors die, he loses. For this reason, it is easier to achieve balance in that game than in DbD.
You act like your opinion is a fact but it really isn't. There is a reason why survivors have a free escape mechanic that robs killers' 4k easily.
What is the win condition then? I really don't know.
A win condition isn't variable, either you do or you don't. That is fact unless their is an ability to come out to a draw. Which this game clearly doesn't have unless a timer was implemented perhaps.
Because many don't want to accept what a win is doesn't make it less factual. If someone 'feels' like they won because they only got 2-3 kills or pipped that's fine. The point, and the OP can correct me if I am wrong, was to figure out why so many consider pipping a win when it clearly is not even related to winning or losing.
People are welcome to feel a certain way or have opinions, but when others are flaming someone for having the right mind of stating pipping is not winning, and they claim the contrary because they feel a certain way about it.
Again, it doesn't change the facts.
You don't have to respond, but was curious if anything in my reply makes any difference? We can agree to disagree. Hoping for further feedback.
_Again, my only stance is on the OP "FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT WINNING IS DEFINED AS PIPPING". Anything involving win rate% or beyond relating to the simple correlation between winning and pipping isn't what I am addressing. _
-
@Paddy4583 said:
@TrAiNwReCk it’s in reply to my comment.
I already said he can have that oppinion, not sure what you are getting at replying to me, they on the other hand are telling people their oppinions are wrong, because this is fundamentally a post wanting balance on a 4K win, there is no other reason to be so defensive or concerned about this condition otherwise.Trying to figure out why you were saying what you were saying is all. People can have opinions, there's nothing wrong with that. Opinions then cannot be considered truth as it relates to being a fact however, so telling someone their opinion is wrong when facts prove otherwise is justified.
"there is no other reason to be so defensive or concerned about this condition otherwise"
No one posts about something unless something within the post is concerning to them. And one can become defensive about something if they are trolled with repetitive responses of opinionated fabrications that are indeed not true at all when someone is wanting to have a legit conversation about something.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Delfador said:
@TrAiNwReCkAny sane person would say that the balance will be achieved when each side has 50% win rate.
nonononononononono
Balance is when there is an EQUAL winrate. That does NOT mean that it is a 50/50 winrate.
Remember a balanced battle royal with 100 players and no teams has a winrate of 1% per players. (so solo que in fortnite)
In any game where you have more than 2 sides you will not be expecting a 50/50 winrate and since each survivor wins and loses separately from each other that means they are not a team and need to be counted separately.
In throne of lies for example the average winrate is 33%, this is recognized by the community and encouraged because people understand that the lower winrate makes the game more fair and interesting.
There is no particular reason why you can't have winrates below 50% when you have more than 2 win combinations (not counting draws which don't exist in this game anyways) If all survivors won and lost together then yes you would want a 50/50 winrate. However since that isn't the case you would expect a winrate of more like 30-40%ish instead with 20% being the lowest
That's interesting. I never thought of it like that. I didn't know you were involving win rates in your OP. I'm out of the loop when it comes to win rates. I remember the devs mentioning win/escape % on certain maps which I thought was interesting. Anything other than that I haven't heard about.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
@NuclearBurrito you only balance on 1v1, so on a 1v1 who would you say needs the rebalance?Balance isn’t just about evening the “win” ratio, and it’s also irrelevant what is classed as a win, because you get nothing for it, the only thing useful after a match is the BPs, rank and emblems mean nothing.
I don’t believe 1 of the objectives should be the focus of balance to declare winning, the real argument you have is you want the game to be balanced around the 4K.
I might have missed it. Where did Nuclear state anything about balance? If they did I am interested in reading it. The only argument I see Nuclear trying to make is that claims of pipping decides if someone won or lost is false, unless it is an opinion which everyone is entitled too.
-
@Delfador said:
@TrAiNwReCkThe mistake you are making is that your win condition is just like any other game that is not asymmetrical.
There is a huge problem with 4k=win, not 4k=loss condition for this game.
Any sane person would say that the balance will be achieved when each side has 50% win rate. As a killer, if you have better win rate, you also rank up and considered to be a good killer just like LoL. If you can win more than half of your matches, you are good. Then what happens if you don't win as a killer?
You get 3k for example.
If in 50 matches you get 4k and in another 50 matches you get 3k, you have 50% winrate according to your logic. Good, seems balanced but then you take a look at the survivor side, out of 400 survivors that played against you, only 50 of them won the match. Their win rate is something like 12.5%. Where is the balance for survivors?
Your logic applies to deathgarden. If the killer can stop runners and kill them, he wins but if he can't, even if some of the survivors die, he loses. For this reason, it is easier to achieve balance in that game than in DbD.
You act like your opinion is a fact but it really isn't. There is a reason why survivors have a free escape mechanic that robs killers' 4k easily.
What is the win condition then? I really don't know.
A win condition isn't variable, either you do or you don't. That is fact unless their is an ability to come out to a draw. Which this game clearly doesn't have unless a timer was implemented perhaps.
Because many don't want to accept what a win is doesn't make it less factual. If someone 'feels' like they won because they only got 2-3 kills or pipped that's fine. The point, and the OP can correct me if I am wrong, was to figure out why so many consider pipping a win when it clearly is not even related to winning or losing.
People are welcome to feel a certain way or have opinions, but when others are flaming someone for having the right mind of stating pipping is not winning, and they claim the contrary because they feel a certain way about it.
Again, it doesn't change the facts.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.
What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.
That's the very definition of a troll.
Truth is backed up with facts. Opinions that generate a wall of text only at an attempt to fabricate fact is an annoyance that does not lead to any type of resolve or enlightenment. And to continue to pile on with even more opinionated unsubstantiated replies is very troll like behavior.
There has not been any word written with intent to insult. If one finds the truth insulting than the problem lies within the one insulted. They should probably seek help and I hope they do.
I obviously agree with your conclusion (of the win condition) but you really sound like a conspiracy theorist and that really doesn't help
Nah, just blowing things outta proportion as others have.
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.
What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.
That's the very definition of a troll.
Truth is backed up with facts. Opinions that generate a wall of text only at an attempt to fabricate fact is an annoyance that does not lead to any type of resolve or enlightenment. And to continue to pile on with even more opinionated unsubstantiated replies is very troll like behavior.
There has not been any word written with intent to insult. If one finds the truth insulting than the problem lies within the one insulted. They should probably seek help and I hope they do.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
Look the simple fact is:
You believe a win for you is a 4K
other’s believe it’s pips.Why do you care? You play to your winning conditions and they can play to theirs.
Its not really a good idea to site the in game pages that state nothing at all about 4ks being the grounds of a win, it simply lists all the realivant ways you can earn BPs and achieve the emblems which link to the pips.
Its not not hard to understand why people see this as the games mechanics of awarding players.
At at the end game survivors are clearly listed in order of points gained, not in revere order of survival.
If people want to go into the game and say I got the most BPs I won, then let them, if they take a personal win from pips, let them, and you can have your win conditions. It’s so pointless trying to make this an argument.
Perhaps the thread is unnecessary. People are entitled to their opinion, but I don't fault the OP for seeking out an answer based on fact instead of opinion.
Many post to the forums hoping to find like minded individuals who can help make sense of the game/balance what have you, but end up having long winded, opinionated people that bring no resolve or enlightenment only annoyance and frustration.
What's more is that people can't even stay on topic, bringing up things outside the scope of the OP only to compound the annoyance of more opinion. Which is only an attempt to fabricate fact from opinion.
-
@knell said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .
Brilliant.
Just for clarification, that quote is not my description of a win.
For details, please visit this thread:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/325748#Comment_325748You are correct. I misread what was posted. I apologize.
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.
What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.
That's the very definition of a troll.
The way you conduct yourself in most threads I see you post in very self centered and anything contradictory to your feelings or opinions are quickly dismissed based on thin air because you can't back anything you say with fact or common sense.
You complicate everything to the point you need to convince yourself you are still correct. I keep things simple and to the point.
Not even a year since you have been a member on these forums and already 6,000+ You live on the forums instead of playing the game you claim to know so much about. I bring fact to my posts, not feelings or opinions unless stated otherwise.
People can't handle the truth (apparently not), so bring on the trolls.
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.
What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.
That's the very definition of a troll.
"FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT WINNING IS DEFINED AS PIPPING"
Shame people cannot stay on topic, they get lost in wonderland with other aspects of the game which have nothing at all to do with the topic.
Pipping is a rank mechanic. Take that away and you don't have pipping. Which means anyone linking pipping to winning or losing could never figure out if they win or lose.
It's amazing how so many write a wall of text to such a simple thread topic. It's not complicated.
You win/lose when a game is OVER.
- You die - you lost
- you escape - you win
- anyone escapes - you lost
- no one escapes - you win
It is literally that simple. Anyone's feelings or opinions to the contrary adds up to a wall of text which is not factual in any sense nor does it stay on topic.
-
@Freudentrauma said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@knell said:
@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.
Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.
But yes this is a reply to someone saying that
One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.
If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .
Brilliant.
Actually removing the pipping already exists in KYF. By those who think pipping means "Win/Lose", it would mean that any KYF would be a match with no win/lose....
If you would shrink DbD down to the basics of the game, getting rid of all the stuff which only "adds" to the core experience, then you wouldn't have any BP or Pips. It would be only four survivors and a killer, spawning on a map with objectives to survive. For each survivor it would only matter if they live or die. For the killer it would only matter how many survivor escape/get killed. For me that's a definitiv win condition for the game.
The thing about it: The win condition of a game isn't everything. DbD has all this stuff, which "adds" to the game like BP, grind, a rank system and pipping as incentive for people to define personal goals and to cultivate a community. A community which plays and enjoys a game. Because like said. a "win" can be very cheap. In my opinion it's not healthy for the community to discuss about some kind of win condition. The question is: "How can we make the game enjoyable" And just looking at the win condition isn't the way to achieve that.
"FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT WINNING IS DEFINED AS PIPPING"
Shame people cannot stay on topic, they get lost in wonderland with other aspects of the game which have nothing at all to do with the topic.
Pipping is a rank mechanic. Take that away and you don't have pipping. Which means anyone linking pipping to winning or losing could never figure out if they win or lose.
It's amazing how so many write a wall of text to such a simple thread topic. It's not complicated.
You win/lose when a game is OVER.
- You die - you lost
- you escape - you win
- anyone escapes - you lost
- no one escapes - you win
It is literally that simple. Anyone's feelings or opinions to the contrary adds up to a wall of text which is not factual in any sense nor does it stay on topic.
-
@Ryuhi said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
Stating opinions as fact is why this topic has yielded nothing in the first place. many people could easily believe that:
- If you waste the killer's time so badly that you are his only kill - You have won
- If you are able to end every chase before getting bloodlust - You have won
- If you are able to get any kills vs a very well organized SWF - You have won
- If you are able to juke a p3 nurse and buy your team a ton of time - You have won
- If you are playing with a friend in SWF and you are able to save them at your own expense - You have won
for example. There is nothing in the game that tells them they are not allowed to believe any of that, just that they will be focusing on something other than a single metric in the game (survival/sacrifice)
It is not an opinion. This is so sad that it must be explained.
When do you WIN or LOSE? When the game is OVER This in itself is proof pipping does NOT depict if you win or lose.
Anyone who puts together winning/losing and pipping is clueless and they are beyond help as common sense escapes their comprehension.
This thread "FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT WINNING IS DEFINED AS PIPPING" is answered simply in that pipping is not a win condition. It is a function within rank. Any other crap you can fabricate to make it sound otherwise is just that.
Take away RANK and you don't PIP what now genius? I guess no one can win or lose by YOUR opinion of winning.
Give yourself a good pat on the back for not having a clue what's fact and opinion.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
@knell said:
@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.
Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.
But yes this is a reply to someone saying that
One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.
If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .
Brilliant.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
-
"WHAT SATISFACTION PEOPLE GET FROM BULLYING LOW RANKS PLAYERS?"
- Can't Compete With Skilled Players
- Enjoy Bullying - lack of a better word
P.S. While ranks certainly fulfill a certain function within the game. Had the ranking system not existed then the players who drop on purpose would be unable to benefit. i.e. They would eventually be paired with a killer/survivors who would run right over them.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
The fact killers have to use BP to get the add-on's to make them "VERY powerful" is a drawback in itself. And it's not like "VERY powerful" add-on's grow on every web . .My 45 Prayer Beads, +30 pink moris, and +25 Mother's Rings would disagree with you. It is indeed easy to maintain this stuff if you are dedicated and can play games without them once in a while. I literally can put this stuff on any time I want for the next month, mainly because I play 99% of my games without this stuff. So when I need it, for that 4 man SWF with all insta-heal/toolboxes I can counter all their OP ######### with my own OP #########.
X is a very powerful add-on so we are going to make you less powerful in some way . . so you aren't very powerful.
It's called a trade-off. I guess you want an infinite insta-kill Myers to be able to get to tier 3 off 1 person AND be able to find you with stalk in tier 3 AND move as fast as he normally would, because that's totally fair. SMH
Here's a thought, let's add a drawback to the two instant heal add-on's for survivors med kits.
There already is a drawback... you get 1 use and it eats the medkit. If you are smart you will put it on a white medkit with a charge add-on then use the medkit once to heal normally before you use the insta-heal when you really NEED it. If you are potato you will use the medkit right after getting hit before the speed boost wears off when there isn't a single pallet or window for a mile against an already one-shot killer. Guess which one survivors tend to do most?
Another reply that doesn't discount the facts I presented. This seems typical of people who troll forums instead of playing the game.
So you spend all you BP on one killer and grab all the pink add-on's and offerings you can get. Fact you will spend 50k-60k BP per web (on a full web). Maybe 1/4 webs grant a random pink up for grabs. That's at least 200k (UNLESS very lucky) BP per pink add-on/offering. Any numbers you claim otherwise are completely false and you are only wanting to be right which makes replying to you further pointless
If a killer or survivor has a ultra rare offering they should be able to use it without any downsides. The amount of BP you spend per ultra rare showing up in a full web is the downside. Someone should be able to be crazy efficient or deadly if they have spent the time and effort playing to spend those points and attained such items/add--on's/offerings.
You are HILARIOUS
You prove there is a drawback to instant heal, then you prove there is not a drawback to instant heal. You have to be smart and not slap it on a common med kit. So your entire little example was meaningless.
SMH
Please think before you post. I know it's a forum and everyone wants to be right . . thing is you aren't. Unless your goal is to add to your post count, you should play the game you claim to know so much about. That's the only way you will see how wrong you are, but still come on here where with no proof to . . try and prove something.
-
@TheWraith883 said:
Tunnel is the word that survivors made to make killers feel bad if they want to assure the kill. Killers should do whatever they need to do to get kills. We don't play by survivor rules.I play both survivor and killer in about 2:1 I find survivor less stressful, but killer brings home the bacon (BP). And I have never blamed the killer for tunneling or camping. It sucks, I won't say it doesn't, but with a little common sense it should make sense.
- Camping - usually a waste of time, but if you are desperate to get that 1 kill that's the way to do it
- Tunneling - or let them go on purpose to chase someone at full health, game takes longer, survivors get more time, less likely to secure more kills before game is over
I am not saying to be a good killer you need to camp or tunnel, but the simple practice of such ideals is common sense when the killers pressure stems from how many survivors are left in a trial.
The same feeling for survivors. When you start losing help to do gens then you start to feel the pressure. unless there are 2 gens done and you are hiding around waiting for other to die so you can get hatch
-
@Master said:
ReikoMori said:It's accurate to what it sounds like when you're actually using a chainsaw. That thing is loud as heck.
If the game is so accurate I ask you why survivors can recover after a chainsawbhit through their upper body
I don't mind the attempt at realism. From a survivor prospective the sound serves it's purpose as a locator and a bit of fear factor. As killer, you can still hear injured survivors and gens getting repaired. So the loudness of the chainsaw can't be to cover up survivor noises.
The question remains what is the purpose of it being so loud to the killer. Even if it is accurate to the real sound, in reality I wouldn't hold a chainsaw next to my face at max revs sprinting forward.
Highly doubt it'll be changed, but it would be a nice QoL while playing Billy.
-
Would have a lot to say here, 2/3 posts stating hatch is a FREE ESCAPE
Hope that poster doesn't show up or face the wall of text and still wonder if they are trying to convince you or themselves.
Agreed, less than 5 gens being done, last survivor gets hatch = free
3/4 . . .
-
@Nickenzie said:
Everyone, NOED is a joke when you use a map with an add-on to show you the killer's belongings! However, being forced to cleanse every totem because the killer is bad shouldn't be a thing in my opinion.NOED shouldn't activate if you don't have many hooks and its speed boost should be replaced with a attack cool down decrease %.
Detectives hunch is also helpful in finding totems.
-
Testing 1 2 3
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@powerbats said:
As someone else pointed out earlier either in this thread or another one might've been @TrAiNwReCk the language barrier is along with the trolling that comes with it.Adding in VC and balancing around that only works if 100% or at least 90% of the player base uses it and there's no way that'll happen.
Then you also introduce the same problem all the other games that've done it have, toxicity that can't be accurately dealt with and a ton of false reports.
Look at how many posts this user has. Clearly they don't spend much time in the game they claim to know so much about ROFL
They troll threads within this forum to feel right because in game, when put into practice, they find out they're wrong.
In forums users can come across however they want, powerbats is a clear example of a 'Right Fighter'
- I am right
- Read my wall of redundant generalized text
- Know I am right
And the cycle repeats.
Read my above response and when you're ready to actually debate I'll be here waiting.
The forum troll returns #2
Read my above response and when you're ready to actually debate I'll be here waiting.
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@powerbats said:
As someone else pointed out earlier either in this thread or another one might've been @TrAiNwReCk the language barrier is along with the trolling that comes with it.Adding in VC and balancing around that only works if 100% or at least 90% of the player base uses it and there's no way that'll happen.
Then you also introduce the same problem all the other games that've done it have, toxicity that can't be accurately dealt with and a ton of false reports.
Funny how powerbats is trolling threads to be a 'Right Fighter'
As long as this poster feels right they will post a wall of text that makes THEM feel like they are right.
They can't be bothered we are tossing around theories.
Sorry, but not sorry powerbats. YOU are still WRONG
I'm not even going to bother responding to you since it's obvious you're no longer here to debate.
The forum troll returns #1
You give up on your 'debate' because a debate uses facts, you use feelings.
Anything else?
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
All that non sense aside.
- 5 generators need to be done
- And 1 key
For all survivors to use the hatch.
The survivors get owned and get less than 5 gens done.
Awe At Least 1 Survivor Should Get To Escape, Even Though They Did Not Do What Is Required To Escape As A Team
The last survivor alive doesn't even have to touch a gen. The other 3 survivors did at least the 2 gens, the useless survivor doing nothing the whole game gets the hatch = FREE
You take things so literal it's hilarious. I gave simple to the point illustration how you are wrong and to drowned us all in a wall of text you generalize everything you say ONLY to try and feel like you're right, but you be WRONG
5 gens need to be done and a key, that means if all 5 gens get done and they escape with a key that means you completely failed in your objective.
If you let them do 5 gens and find the hatch and all 4 get out through it and yet you want to blame the survivors because you failed that game.
Now if you don't get all 4 then you obviously didn't own them, and the survivors aren't a team since each is an individual working to get out.
Now they did in fact do enough of their objective to get out, 1 person made it out if they in fact actually get the hatch.
**The very definition of the term free.
adjective 1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
adverb 1. without cost or payment.**
From the Wiki.
The Black Lock, also known and commonly referred to as the "Hatch", is one of the two potential ways for Survivors to escape a trial in Dead by Daylight
The Hatch will become visible ("spawn") whenever the number of fully repaired Generators IconHelpLoading generators.png exceeds the number of living Survivors by 1:
4 Survivors remaining: 5 repaired Generators / Exit Gates are powered
3 Survivors remaining: 4 repaired Generators / 1 Generator left
2 Survivors remaining: 3 repaired Generators / 2 Generators left
1 Survivor remaining: 2 repaired Generators / 3 Generators leftSo since the survivors have together done enough to meet the minimum objectives that means the hatch isn't a free escape.
Another wall of text . . . Trying to convince us and yourself that you are right smh.
Still doesn't mean the last survivor did any gens to help open the hatch and gets to use the hatch = a free escape.
No matter how many words you cram into a post it doesn't change facts.
-
@Eninya said:
I would rather not hear the killers' insanely loud breathing when I'm playing them. Nurse is absolutely egregious on that front, and she can drown out survivors' movements and whines.The nurse shriek right after a blink is quite loud as well, She isn't as bad as billy, but she is up there in the annoyingly loud department.
-
@Mister_xD said:
i dont have any problems with that...
maybe if you turn down the overall game volume?also, the chainsaw is that loud to prevent billy from hearing survivors during his sprint.
silencing it would give good players the ability to be able to tell when somewhere next to them the grass made some noise and therefore catch survivors out much easier (during the sprint, obviously xD)I never said anywhere I want to silence it. Even with how loud it is you can easily hear cries of pain and gens being done. It's simply too loud without the add-on's making it quieter. To have to listen to it at that volume seems needless only to make your ears blow up.
Turning down the game volume defeats the purpose of having it turned up, to hear everything else in the game.
-
@powerbats said:
As someone else pointed out earlier either in this thread or another one might've been @TrAiNwReCk the language barrier is along with the trolling that comes with it.Adding in VC and balancing around that only works if 100% or at least 90% of the player base uses it and there's no way that'll happen.
Then you also introduce the same problem all the other games that've done it have, toxicity that can't be accurately dealt with and a ton of false reports.
Look at how many posts this user has. Clearly they don't spend much time in the game they claim to know so much about ROFL
They troll threads within this forum to feel right because in game, when put into practice, they find out they're wrong.
In forums users can come across however they want, powerbats is a clear example of a 'Right Fighter'
- I am right
- Read my wall of redundant generalized text
- Know I am right
And the cycle repeats.
-
@powerbats said:
As someone else pointed out earlier either in this thread or another one might've been @TrAiNwReCk the language barrier is along with the trolling that comes with it.Adding in VC and balancing around that only works if 100% or at least 90% of the player base uses it and there's no way that'll happen.
Then you also introduce the same problem all the other games that've done it have, toxicity that can't be accurately dealt with and a ton of false reports.
Funny how powerbats is trolling threads to be a 'Right Fighter'
As long as this poster feels right they will post a wall of text that makes THEM feel like they are right.
They can't be bothered we are tossing around theories.
Sorry, but not sorry powerbats. YOU are still WRONG
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
This "Also this isn't any comparison to the hatch either so all the hatch complainers don't even bother since there's no equivalency here." Is Hilarious.
The only time players bring up being rewarded for "poor performance" in regards to killer or survivor they bring up
- Hatch
- NOED
As they both aren't earned, they are ACTIVATED automatically when substandard game mechanics are applied.
- Survivor did all gens, but not all totems . . . Get an instant down Killers
Hmmn 4 individual survivors including any solos which are at least 30% of all lobbies so the solo players cleanse all the totem they can find. They either die or can't find that last well hidden totem and die to NOED to a killer that just played horribly the entire map.
- Killer killed 3/4 survivors and ONLY 2+ gens got done . . . Get a free escape last Survivor (your team failed to get all gens done to escape, but one of you can still escape . . . just because)
You just can't see the forest for the trees here, it's not free because in order for it to even spawn 2 gens must be done minimum. Then the other 3 survivors must die in order for it to even spawn still and that last person. Well they have to actually make it to the hatch and get into it without being grabbed.
Thus factually, logically and definition wise IT'S NOT A FREE ESCAPE. The can escape if they manage to do so because they did enough of their objectives to do so. You're not entitled to a free 4th kill and they have to actually do something to even have a chance at getting out.
Rant all you like, but trying to shut out those with common sense "hatch complainers" proves how ignorant you are. You don't want the game balanced around facts, you want the game balanced around feelings.
The only rants here are those of you and those like you that don't like to accept the simple fact the hatch isn't a free escape at all under any shape form or fashion. Also the only ones wanting the game balanced around feeling are you and those like you that when confronted with actual facts and logic go berserk.
I don't care about hatch or NOED. The simple fact is that they have more in common with how their mechanic works, rewarding those who don't have to work for anything. All they have to do is wait for the mechanic to become activated.
No, NOED can reward you for doing nothing the entire game and you could stand in the corner twiddling your thumbs all game and still 4k.
The hatch requires that at least 2 gens be done which is more than doing nothing, in other words the survivors have to work towards that something for it to even become available.
Then they have to work to actually make it to said hatch, they have to work to actually make it safely into said hatch.
Oh and here just to put the end to this childish free nonsense yet again.
The very definition of the term free.
adjective 1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
adverb 1. without cost or payment.
Wow would you imagine that the hatch isn't a free escape because they've got to actually do something in order for it to even appear let alone use it.
All that non sense aside.
- 5 generators need to be done
- And 1 key
For all survivors to use the hatch.
The survivors get owned and get less than 5 gens done.
Awe At Least 1 Survivor Should Get To Escape, Even Though They Did Not Do What Is Required To Escape As A Team
The last survivor alive doesn't even have to touch a gen. The other 3 survivors did at least the 2 gens, the useless survivor doing nothing the whole game gets the hatch = FREE
You take things so literal it's hilarious. I gave simple to the point illustration how you are wrong and to drowned us all in a wall of text you generalize everything you say ONLY to try and feel like you're right, but you be WRONG
-
@Raptorrotas said:
Its not like we're asking to remove this sound, at 70-80% it would still drown out anything else but wouldnt make our ears bleed.That's the idea.
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
Instead of generalizing 'Balance Around Voice Chat' please, give even 1 example of 'balance' around voice chat? Voice Chat isn't a function or some type of mechanic that can be tweaked and altered in any way. It is either there, or it's not.Some might say, well have perks that can affect voice communication in game in some way. Maybe after the 1st hook the player loses the ability to use voice chat (killer cut out their voice box idk). Wow, balance . . .
Wait . . . Let's just use Discord.
I am willing to hear any actual 'balance' based around voice chat that players won't simply revert to using Discord because they don't want any type of balance.
As others have said, voice communication is only as powerful as the survivors make it. A bunch of randoms with voice chat would probably be trash talking one another 90% of the time, making annoying noises or talking about non game related things.
SWF is only OP when used by organized, skillful and knowledgeable players. They are a dim a dozen, but the fact they can be that power needs to be balanced within the SWF mechanic in the game. Limiting SWF groups only to unique perk/item/offerings (no player would have access to what other players take into the game) would add great balance to such SWF groups. Those who claim otherwise just want to have access to such OP configurations if they want too use them.
Balance around VC doesn't mean that you make changes that directly hinder the VC itself, that would be counter productive.
Rather you just take the assumption that survivors know anything the other survivors know and then make a balanced game with that information after doing whatever needs to be done in order to make sure that this is true.
"after doing whatever needs to be done" that's what I am wanting to know. What is that, that needs to be done? How do you balance around an assumption?
Simple. Buffs when the assumption means a side has more power and nerfs if it means less power.
Yes, but what would these buffs be? I am not trying to be a troll or whatever. I really want to know.
The problem is Survivors OR Killers just want something to happen and then balance it from there. What's the points of changing things to change them only to still have balance issues down the line. Wanting change without any specific realistic ideas for balance there after makes the change meaningless. It essentially gives into one side and still problems persist, but hey that one side got what they wanted so its fine.
Really, I am just asking. If you are unsure that's fine, but that's my point.
I've only not been specifying because it is kinda arbitrary. It could be a MS buff to killers, it could be a gen repair nerf to survivors, it could be a hatch rework that is more killer sided or it could be a combination of things.
The buffs do not have to specifically counter VC somehow so it's kinda hard to say that this change needs a specific buff to go with it, we don't it just needs to be mathematically sufficient, playtesting would be required to figure out what that means exactly
Right on, I think I can see what you are saying now. And some of those ideas sound fair on the surface, I think so anyway.
One example, then we get a new problem. Gens take a bit longer to do with the addition of Voice Chat.
"As a survivor I don't use voice chat at all, I don't like it, it's annoying because x, y and zwhy should I have a harder time getting gens completed when I don't even use the voice chat?"
Might not be the best example, but while your reasoning isn't unfair in my opinion. Players will find circumstances to make your reasons unfair for them in particular.
-
@powerbats said:
@ATOMIC_ACE_PUGG said:
Because it forces surviors to be carefulIt's not really so much that as a killer can suck the entire game I mean absolutely no map pressure and literally just camp their hex totem etc. If the spot they're camping also has the totem close or it's really well hidden the killer gets downs they didn't really deserve.
Also this isn't any comparison to the hatch either so all the hatch complainers don't even bother since there's no equivalency here.
I don't really have an issue with NOED other than when I get downed by it after cleansing the other 4 totems and if anything totems should be worth much more.
If totems were worth 1k objective points and hexes worth 2k points you'd expect everyone is going to go looking for totems.
That's less people doing gens and much more likely to get caught by the killer looking for said totem cleansers.
This "Also this isn't any comparison to the hatch either so all the hatch complainers don't even bother since there's no equivalency here." Is Hilarious.
The only time players bring up being rewarded for "poor performance" in regards to killer or survivor they bring up
- Hatch
- NOED
As they both aren't earned, they are ACTIVATED automatically when substandard game mechanics are applied.
- Survivor did all gens, but not all totems . . . Get an instant down Killers
- Killer killed 3/4 survivors and ONLY 2+ gens got done . . . Get a free escape last Survivor (your team failed to get all gens done to escape, but one of you can still escape . . . just because)
Rant all you like, but trying to shut out those with common sense "hatch complainers" proves how ignorant you are. You don't want the game balanced around facts, you want the game balanced around feelings.
I don't care about hatch or NOED. The simple fact is that they have more in common with how their mechanic works, rewarding those who don't have to work for anything. All they have to do is wait for the mechanic to become activated.
-
Getting into the HaddonFeild map was a huge ######### moment. No idea why they thought "Hey this is not loud enough" . . . "Well let's turn it UP"
The chainsaw sound change would just be nice. As I mentioned the sound reducing add-on's for the chainsaw make Hillbilly more enjoyable to play, he is still fun. Though that chainsaw is ungodly loud when you already have sound turned up in general to hear the little things.
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
Instead of generalizing 'Balance Around Voice Chat' please, give even 1 example of 'balance' around voice chat? Voice Chat isn't a function or some type of mechanic that can be tweaked and altered in any way. It is either there, or it's not.Some might say, well have perks that can affect voice communication in game in some way. Maybe after the 1st hook the player loses the ability to use voice chat (killer cut out their voice box idk). Wow, balance . . .
Wait . . . Let's just use Discord.
I am willing to hear any actual 'balance' based around voice chat that players won't simply revert to using Discord because they don't want any type of balance.
As others have said, voice communication is only as powerful as the survivors make it. A bunch of randoms with voice chat would probably be trash talking one another 90% of the time, making annoying noises or talking about non game related things.
SWF is only OP when used by organized, skillful and knowledgeable players. They are a dim a dozen, but the fact they can be that power needs to be balanced within the SWF mechanic in the game. Limiting SWF groups only to unique perk/item/offerings (no player would have access to what other players take into the game) would add great balance to such SWF groups. Those who claim otherwise just want to have access to such OP configurations if they want too use them.
Balance around VC doesn't mean that you make changes that directly hinder the VC itself, that would be counter productive.
Rather you just take the assumption that survivors know anything the other survivors know and then make a balanced game with that information after doing whatever needs to be done in order to make sure that this is true.
"after doing whatever needs to be done" that's what I am wanting to know. What is that, that needs to be done? How do you balance around an assumption?
Simple. Buffs when the assumption means a side has more power and nerfs if it means less power.
Yes, but what would these buffs be? I am not trying to be a troll or whatever. I really want to know.
The problem is Survivors OR Killers just want something to happen and then balance it from there. What's the points of changing things to change them only to still have balance issues down the line. Wanting change without any specific realistic ideas for balance there after makes the change meaningless. It essentially gives into one side and still problems persist, but hey that one side got what they wanted so its fine.
Really, I am just asking. If you are unsure that's fine, but that's my point.
-
@IamFran said:
TrAiNwReCk said:My biggest Killer add-on complaint is since most killers need their add-on's, why . . WHY . . . WHY should killers have negative affects on any of their add-on's?
In some cases the negative effects are justified because without that negative effect the addon would be OP. However there are some nonsense cases, Amanda's letter is the best example.
These add-on's that could be viewed as OP are not in every web. Killers have to spend tons of BP in order to snag one of these add-on's in general. To add any negative to any 'OP' add-on is counter intuitive.
Surprised eboni mori doesn't have a negative It is the strongest add-on/offering a killer can have equipped.
- eboni mori allows you to kill a survivor after 1 hook. You will run 10% slower
And what about nurses purple add-on's? The two that take away 1 blink, forcing a player to use the next add-on to be a additive blink to make up the difference.
Sure you can, if you wanted too play with 1 blink as nurse you could, but that wouldn't make any sense from a practical standpoint.
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
Instead of generalizing 'Balance Around Voice Chat' please, give even 1 example of 'balance' around voice chat? Voice Chat isn't a function or some type of mechanic that can be tweaked and altered in any way. It is either there, or it's not.Some might say, well have perks that can affect voice communication in game in some way. Maybe after the 1st hook the player loses the ability to use voice chat (killer cut out their voice box idk). Wow, balance . . .
Wait . . . Let's just use Discord.
I am willing to hear any actual 'balance' based around voice chat that players won't simply revert to using Discord because they don't want any type of balance.
As others have said, voice communication is only as powerful as the survivors make it. A bunch of randoms with voice chat would probably be trash talking one another 90% of the time, making annoying noises or talking about non game related things.
SWF is only OP when used by organized, skillful and knowledgeable players. They are a dim a dozen, but the fact they can be that power needs to be balanced within the SWF mechanic in the game. Limiting SWF groups only to unique perk/item/offerings (no player would have access to what other players take into the game) would add great balance to such SWF groups. Those who claim otherwise just want to have access to such OP configurations if they want too use them.
Balance around VC doesn't mean that you make changes that directly hinder the VC itself, that would be counter productive.
Rather you just take the assumption that survivors know anything the other survivors know and then make a balanced game with that information after doing whatever needs to be done in order to make sure that this is true.
"after doing whatever needs to be done" that's what I am wanting to know. What is that, that needs to be done? How do you balance around an assumption?
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
The fact killers have to use BP to get the add-on's to make them "VERY powerful" is a drawback in itself. And it's not like "VERY powerful" add-on's grow on every web . .
X is a very powerful add-on so we are going to make you less powerful in some way . . so you aren't very powerful.
Here's a thought, let's add a drawback to the two instant heal add-on's for survivors med kits.
- Until instant heal add-on is used survivor runs 10% slower
That way killers playing against someone with an instant heal item is somewhat reasonable to play against.
Makes Sense To Me
Yes lets ignore the fact that the killers need to have something to spend bp on and lets just give them bp that they can't really use. If killers were super powerful without buying addons then bp gains would be in the 100's range per match.
There isn't a killer out there that'd be happy with a measly 1-4k bp for a 4k match since that'd be what it would have to come down to.
Also just stop with the insta heal nonsense it's a ONE TIME usage thing and it consumes the medkit, the killer addons are multi usage per match.
So using your logic then killers ultra rare and very rare addons should have a cd timer or some other negative effect to balance it out.
As far as playing against them why is it that so many killers can play against it and still get 2-4k and why is it that if they existed so much the survival rate isn't 100%?
I mean if all you complainers are to be believed than the survival rate should be at least 80-100% given how often you all seem to magically run into this.
Slow your role dude. I was only applying 'thesuicidefox' rationale.
"Because being able to instantly kill a survivor without having to hit them, let alone hook, is VERY powerful and needs some drawbacks to make it at least somewhat reasonable to play against."
I don't care at all about instant heals. But if having negative affects on add-on's killers have to pay for, then survivors should have them too!
Meaningful ones, not a couple that make skill checks more likely and slightly smaller . .
You should read what replies are replying too before jumping too conclusions.
-
Instead of generalizing 'Balance Around Voice Chat' please, give even 1 example of 'balance' around voice chat? Voice Chat isn't a function or some type of mechanic that can be tweaked and altered in any way. It is either there, or it's not.
Some might say, well have perks that can affect voice communication in game in some way. Maybe after the 1st hook the player loses the ability to use voice chat (killer cut out their voice box idk). Wow, balance . . .
Wait . . . Let's just use Discord.
I am willing to hear any actual 'balance' based around voice chat that players won't simply revert to using Discord because they don't want any type of balance.
As others have said, voice communication is only as powerful as the survivors make it. A bunch of randoms with voice chat would probably be trash talking one another 90% of the time, making annoying noises or talking about non game related things.
SWF is only OP when used by organized, skillful and knowledgeable players. They are a dim a dozen, but the fact they can be that power needs to be balanced within the SWF mechanic in the game. Limiting SWF groups only to unique perk/item/offerings (no player would have access to what other players take into the game) would add great balance to such SWF groups. Those who claim otherwise just want to have access to such OP configurations if they want too use them.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
My biggest Killer add-on complaint is since most killers need their add-on's, why . . WHY . . . WHY should killers have negative affects on any of their add-on's?Because being able to instantly kill a survivor without having to hit them, let alone hook, is VERY powerful and needs some drawbacks to make it at least somewhat reasonable to play against.
The fact killers have to use BP to get the add-on's to make them "VERY powerful" is a drawback in itself. And it's not like "VERY powerful" add-on's grow on every web . .
X is a very powerful add-on so we are going to make you less powerful in some way . . so you aren't very powerful.
Here's a thought, let's add a drawback to the two instant heal add-on's for survivors med kits.
- Until instant heal add-on is used survivor runs 10% slower
That way killers playing against someone with an instant heal item is somewhat reasonable to play against.
Makes Sense To Me
-
My biggest Killer add-on complaint is since most killers need their add-on's, why . . WHY . . . WHY should killers have negative affects on any of their add-on's?
-
@xmenfanatic said:
The game could implement the same effect as NOED as soon as the hatch opens, maybe that would balance things a bit?I thought this could be a viable option as well.
-
I don't believe it would make sense for it to be less loud to the killer, but it would be nice as he is usually using it half the time.
-
I mentioned this in a previous thread. Not a perfect fix in terms of fairness. Players are welcome to weigh game mechanics differently. However, the only two mechanics I hear players speak of rewarding poor game play/performance for either side involves the Hatch and NOED.
MY THOUGHTS
- Remove NOED
- Remove Hatch
No One Gets Rewarded For Poor Game Play/Performance
I am not a user of NOED and I am far from a "hatch king" - Monto
So I could see these two cancel each other out and continue on with my killer & survivor games without being affected.
-
@NoShinyPony said:
@The_Crusader said:
Its not even just that they reward bad players, it's that both perks have the potential to turn the game around in an instant. A simple perk shouldn't be able to do that.What is the difference between 3 survivors getting downed with NOED and 3 survivors getting downed in one phase of Michael's EW3? It's both just bad play from the survivors' side.
I will assume, that survivors don't rank Micheal's power or Devour Hope the same as NOED as both of those perks require the killer to do something. Where as NOED is automatically applied.
It's only a guess. I could be wrong.
That being said, the attempted balance for NOED is not only the fact totems are it's lifeline, but many players seem to forget the killer is running with 3 perks basically the main part of the game. NOED is a last ditch effort to turn a game around in a sense.
I don't run NOED, not because I dislike the perk or anything, but it got old being bashed for using it. Using other perks with certain killers are just as viable to snowball a 4k. NOED isn't necessary, but I don't like to lump most NOED users into the noob bin.
If I come across NOED, DS or whatever it's just a game. Roll your eyes and say oh well lol.
-
@fluffybunny said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@ermsy said:
TrAiNwReCk said:@NightmareReborn said:
I feel like people hate it because it rewards poor performance. I'd just make it so that survivors know the killer has noed when the last gen is popped rather when a survivor is hit. It would give extra warning to the survivors. Also that the NOED totem would be revealed in a small radius so you would have to spend 10 hrs finding it.
I don't care about NOED or DS. They both can be annoying to go up against, but I like your thoughts on players perception of the NOED perk.
* I feel like people hate it because it rewards poor performance
If this truly is the majority of players perception I as a killer who couldn't care if NOED stays or goes.
* Remove NOED for killers
* Remove hatch for survivors
NO MORE REWARDING ANYONE FOR BAD PERFORMANCEId agree to this
@fluffybunny since you mentioned poor play in one of your posts :-)
I actually wanted to reply to this after, but didn't want to be that person leaving a ton of replies in a row. QQ Hatch could use a rework so that it's more of a game of skill rather than often a gift to survivors, regardless of skill. Hatch isn't really a sign of poor play unless we're suggesting survivors should be treated as a unit. I've had many games where I've done all the gens or was the only one solid in a chase, so there's often a range of skill when regarding both solo and swf. It should be more of a process, though, that takes skill, but is doable with just one person, though.
The more posts the more info shared. It's always good to receive feedback. We all hope for opinionated feedback, not that hateful stuff.
I wasn't trying at a real balance to the game, but you're not the only one to mention NOED rewards poor performance or something similar. So I thought the hatch would be a good resemblance to NOED and unrealistically would cancel each other out in the rewards for being bad department.
Agreed, because you and your team only got 2+ gens done doesn't mean you are bad by any means. Though if a killer keeps good pressure, secures quick hooks and gets kills before gens can power the gates I say they deserve the kills. Just as a 4 man survivor team. It's not fair to any of them if the killer manages to get 1 survivor due to NOED if they all managed to survive only to power the gates and get dumped on. I feel they are of similar weight in the value they have to both sides.
-
@Mat_Sella said:
im hoping its a humanoid spider. i have a fear of them and there's no way it can be botched up and become non-scary like The ClownThat is the unfortunate thing with this game. 2 new killers a year is a lot to create/balance. And I can only assume all killers will have to be a humanoid of some sort to make all other functions within the game make sense.
There are only so many types of human killers one can come up with.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
Considering there are about 500 topics detailing why people hate this perk or that perk you could have used the search function instead of making the 501st one. But here we are.Many people like to create their own personal thread of frustration. I look up old threads and surprised at some how they died out as some players have made some very good suggestions and arguments of all sorts, but they die with time.
No one wants to support someone else's died out frustration thread XD
-
@ermsy said:
TrAiNwReCk said:@NightmareReborn said:
I feel like people hate it because it rewards poor performance. I'd just make it so that survivors know the killer has noed when the last gen is popped rather when a survivor is hit. It would give extra warning to the survivors. Also that the NOED totem would be revealed in a small radius so you would have to spend 10 hrs finding it.
I don't care about NOED or DS. They both can be annoying to go up against, but I like your thoughts on players perception of the NOED perk.
* I feel like people hate it because it rewards poor performance
If this truly is the majority of players perception I as a killer who couldn't care if NOED stays or goes.
* Remove NOED for killers
* Remove hatch for survivors
NO MORE REWARDING ANYONE FOR BAD PERFORMANCEId agree to this
@fluffybunny since you mentioned poor play in one of your posts :-)