UnicornMedal
UnicornMedal
About
- Username
- UnicornMedal
- Joined
- Visits
- 892
- Last Active
Comments
-
I've mentioned backfilling before. It's standard for games like this. It might not always be worth it, but it's an opportunity to earn more points at least.
-
Too many one-hit downs for the mode, honestly. Players can't be trusted to play casually with it at all. It's one of those things where you either have to beef up Survivor abilities to compensate (full chaos mode) or scale it back so that it's manageable without forcing a steamroll. The mode still feels more balanced than the main game but it would make it feel better overall.
-
I love RPD but it's bad for 2v8, so I wouldn't mind seeing that changed. I'd also like to see some anti-tunnel and maybe the ability to self-unhook on 2nd stage.
-
Once they got rid of bug reports, it fell to the wayside. Ironically, their new bug report system is just as slow and unreliable.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057038#Comment_4057038
Survivor now is more stronger role in 2v8, if the killers arent all except nemi,trapper,ghostface,slinger,pyramidhead than its escape for most of survivors because these killers arent good unless they play perfectly and never miss or missplay.
Survivors are literally perfect 100% of the time.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057037#Comment_4057037
according to what? the balance of hoping killers give up and play survivor? because I've seen zero rational takes on the killer balancing as people only talk or care about queues
It's a slowdown unaffected by the scaling difficulty.
-
I said it before, but the zombies act as a natural slowdown that fall outside of the mode's typical balancing. It shouldn't be more than 2.
-
@ImWinston said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055815#Comment_4055815
- Can you imagine a collection of "urban and discreet style" skins? Like normal clothing items, colors like white, black, beige, gray... Parisian urban fashion style. I think it would sell like hotcakes. Today, the most basic skin has horns, wings, neon lights, and fireworks.
- Edit: Taurie's new skin (which I think is very well made) literally gives me the shivers... it looks like Hunk from the Umbrella Corporation🤣
Not to get all fancy but that's why I believe the art team has no fashion sense. You always need basic pieces to pull a look together. If everything has a graphic, a pattern, or a bold color, then it only works with itself. Hell, a lot of the sets we're getting don't even match together. 😭 It's fine if people wanna look busted, but it's hard for those of us that don't lmao
@MrsMaliciousX said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055831#Comment_4055831
God lol those were the days. And now, well..now thats all it is LMFAO.
No kidding. I'm still mad about David's blue hair and whatever the hell they did to him in that metal rift. 😭
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055827#Comment_4055827
dont need to try, im just saying what i would do if given the opportunity lol. if the game is perfectly balanced and i find a team mate thats doing totems instead of gens, or if im going against a killer that i just dont like even if they are balanced…..i would still DC if i had the option available and had no penalty. If i go into a match with the goal of doing a blind challenge and i find the killer has lightborn, i would DC if given the option no matter how balanced the game is. If i come across a friendly killer thats meming around i would quite likely DC if given the ability to do so without penalty.
I'm curious about this now. Anti-DC because you'd abuse it yourself?
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
I said it from time to time that some Killer Bots would go Nuts if they weren´t programmed to miss.
Imagine the following:
A Huntress bot will always throw her hatched when you are into her hit zone. So either do a sick flick or get downed.
Spirit bot should be much stronger aswell. I mean for her nothing changes when she chases you just that she gets much faster.
And so on.
So I must take a defensive post here for BHVR because many players said just do a custom mode vs bot Killers. But that isn´t so easy to balance as you see with the nurse bot because the only way you could nerf her is by programming her to be bad at her distance calculating.
To the last point specifically, the criticism at this point centers more around them introducing bots to custom games 5 years ago sans Killers, with 2v8 serving as a testing ground for bridging that gap, and they've still only managed to release a little under half of the roster who is still unavailable in custom games.
-
@Classic_Rando said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055805#Comment_4055805
Ok, don’t play then. I’ve been having fun, especially in 2v8. What specifically needs to be fixed for you to want to play?
Here, let me write a long-winded essay on a thread that will fall off the front page within a week about all of the problems with the game we're all very aware of stemming back to 2016, only to get into a circular argument with people who already have their minds made up just to have the devs ignore all of it anyway. 🤩
-
@MrsMaliciousX said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055807#Comment_4055807
I agree, There was a few that I got from Prime that were pretty stinkin cute. Sadly, all the outfits these days make you stick out like a sore thumb. I may have thousands of hrs in the game, but I cant not for the life of me run very long LOL.
And to think we thought toxic Nea was bad 🤣
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055806#Comment_4055806
balance is irrelevant when discussing DC's. it can be the most balanced game in the world but if someone doesnt like a particular killer or map or they mess up big time and know they fumbled it or they find a team mate doing totems instead of gens, or a team mate didnt last long in the first chase then people will DC if given the opportunity.
How about we try before we shoot it down.
-
They were all a cute novelty at first, but I consistently skip them now. Just me personally, I don't see the point in having more things nobody pays attention to, especially after I've found what I like.
However, I'm incredibly bored with cosmetics too. They're always OK at best these days.
-
You have to love that every single time a thread like this starts, people get really upset over DCs but think the game being in a massively unbalanced and broken state is fine.
-
Avoid the game entirely at this point, to be honest.
-
Gee, it sure would be nice if Baermar Uraz was playable again. Must not be very urgent.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053208#Comment_4053208
What do you think "second chance" means exactly?I've always hated the emphasis on 'second chance' as a category for perks. As if extending a chase via DS is different than extending it via Lithe, or getting quickly healed, or having teammates running gen perks necessitating the chase not be as long, etc. All of those are balance questions by individual perks, but second chance is worded as if there is something unique about the perk that makes it unfair.
Isn't that always the goal? Make camping/tunneling/slugging seem weak and half-baked while claiming that any valid tool on the opposing side is extremely strong, including BS like Weaving Spiders. 😵
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053176#Comment_4053176
I do. The mods used to take conversations and move them to the feedback forum, which I used to think killed conversation, but I honestly believe it was done to earmark things internally. I know it doesn't seem like they listen to much, but thats all the more reason why I oppose ranting and clogging up avenues. I've also seen many ideas (both good and bad) that have made their rounds through the forums long before being tested or adopted in game.
Feedback channels like this can be valuable as much as they can be rubbish. Places like twitter are better for pointless posting, but places like here (and even Reddit to a degree, hence the AMAs they used to do) can be a great crowdsource of ideas and insights. As there is no way to either curate or validate info from semi-anonymous sources, it should (and hopefully is) taken with a grain of salt in most cases, but thats not to say people don't make their arguments with the health of the game in mind. That said, the official presence on the forums seems more sparse than ever, so for all I know, it does get ignored more often than not now.
Without knowing what happens in your average meeting or internal communications, we'll never know. Still, a lot of the names that have been here over the years have been speaking more to the devs than the people they were arguing with, and I'm positive multiple of them have gotten through beyond just complaints.
And yet we're still here a decade after the game's launch still arguing about the same things. My point is that even if we're trying to get to the bottom of these things, we're just have the same circular arguments year after year that never seem to have much impact on the game. So the argument of whether something is conductive to discussion or not is sort of moot. Unless anyone genuinely believes that going back and forth in these threads for another year is suddenly going to solve the game balance, we're just here shooting the breeze.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053156#Comment_4053156
If we are going to end on, DBD is unbalanced so we should just have a free for all, then there's no point to the conversation.
Anyone who is not freshly new, knows what they are signing up for before pressing ready. The die has been cast and outside cheaters and exploits, the player has agreed to play the match knowing how it could play out.
If we're being completely serious, do you feel that anything we talk about really influences the game at all? We talk here more or less to kill time. There's no point in any of these conversations.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053148#Comment_4053148
It isn't that I don't understand it, it's that it was something that could have been retained. BHVR chose the most punishing and frankly unusual option to get there is all.They could have chosen far worse. It could have let you do so and given you a penalty as if you disconnected, which was a problem with the other system they rolled out at the same time, but kept them separate and prevented players from triggering it instead. They could have NOT changed the offerings to allow it, and reworked the perks that do. The system they landed on was a straight compromise, sacrificing a minor change (not having a chance to refuse to die for free) and complimented that with an alternative (put even a single aspect of your build into it, and the chance comes back and does not affect perks that guarantee it.)
I think that applies to gen kicking as well.Gen kicking is honestly more nuanced, since there are times where it CAN interfere with gameplay that doesn't involve 3 genning, in more capacity than just refusing to accept defeat. 4%ing was only viable when it was your only option, and the abandon feature overlaps most of those situations, while none of them are affected by even just giving up an offering slot.
but we now have a system that allows us to give up "legally" that pops more often than it doesn't (which to me is adjacent to where the game was when it wasn't "legal").I agree that the abandon feature is too lenient, but it goes back to my original point: The crux of the issue is player entitlement, which you can't directly address with gameplay mechanics. You can only redirect it, which is why they decided to make it apply to more than just bleedout scenarios. I don't agree with it at all, but you can't force people to not be entitled, and leaving matches early IS an entitlement problem. Its a very important fact to the argument, as entitled people very rarely admit that they are, and will pull people's legitimate concerns as excuses the moment they are able to. Its self report bias without even being able to look the person in the eyes.
In the end, it would have fared much better had they addressed those aforementioned larger concerns with the game.The excuses? Excuses aren't legitimate concerns, and the ones used only apply to one side. Killers have had plenty of excuses that they would consider legitimate to be able to leave matches early, and like survivors, they have a wide range of reasonability. The problem is that by accepting a match, you are agreeing to deal with the parts of it you don't personally like. This has been the foundation of friendly contest since its inception: Rules are to be agreed upon before participating, and participation conveys acceptance of the terms given. Concepts like cheating break that contract, but football teams don't give up because the other side punted instead of giving a turnover near their own endzone. Fencers don't walk off the mat because their opponent knows how to feint. Fighting game players aren't allowed to just give up because their opponent constantly throws fireballs. Half of the point of competition is adaptation, you're supposed to deal with the things that suck and do your best to return the advantage to yourself, not take your ball and go home.
The system addressed the most valid concerns that were involved with people leaving the match early: It stopped them from doing so in most cases, and allowed them to do so in the extreme ones where it would be justified. If anything, they were too lenient on that front, which only emboldens the spoiled behavior into pushing limits instead of properly correcting the behavior. Its hard to stay neutral on this kind of thing because I've had countless games ruined by teammates giving up, yet it keeps getting posed as a killer sided stance by survivors who just want their ability to leave early and continue ruining those matches for other survivors. The ones left behind generally would rather people not be able to ruin their games, but the community is so deep in the us vs them meta that its an unpopular opinion to have.
Well, to be entirely fair, we're not talking about a game that's very fair to begin with or even properly "organized". When the game was more chaotic, entitlement certainly existed but it didn't manifest the way that it does now. I think in many ways, going next was the Survivor variant of camping/tunneling/slugging or 3-genning (when it was more aggressive). They're ways of exerting control over the trial that fall outside of fair play. The only real difference post-anti-go next is that one side is not allowed to do that while the other still is. While you have your anecdotal evidence that trials were ruined by giving up, I have my own that trials were and still are ruined by Killers tunneling at 5 gens. Except the former is bad and the latter somehow isn't (both by BHVR's and the community at large's examples). 2025 sought to address going next and camping/tunneling/slugging and only addressed one. To me that's pretty cut and dry.
Now we can agree to disagree on that front, but my ultimate stance is that this one-sided balancing is not good for the game.
-
It's a double-edged sword. The lobby is one of the few remnants of DBD's old identity and I think for that reason it should be maintained. Additionally, it benefits Killer more than Survivor so I don't see it going. But if we were to be a little more consistent with where DBD is (this idea that you're held hostage once the trial begins), it would make more sense to remove it. But I think doing so would really hurt the soul of the game.
-
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that Killers are underperforming, or more surprisingly that the game has a very strong Survivor bias. The last 6 months have had some pretty nasty nerfs to Survivor that wouldn't have happened if they were the favored role. Not to sound like a broken record either, but I really find it useless to punish the role even further because they know how to use a few of the older perks that are still effective against camping/tunneling/slugging or because they've become more effective at gens after being told they suck at the game.
-
@Vtech said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052948#Comment_4052948
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052963#Comment_4052963
Not Joking!
It's just the killer Version of DS.
Whats wrong with tha?
Chained Hook:
If Survivors unhook a survivor in your Terror radius trigger a skill check if you succeed the survivor is rehooked instantly and gains another hook state up to sacrificed.Another example of wanting the competition to be NPCs and real people at the same time.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053140#Comment_4053140
While the aforementioned autonomy does factor in the ability to leave when a trial is cooked (which Abandon mostly covers these days), it also affects that 4%. Having to bring a perk or get no chance at all undoubtedly affects player autonomy.I already explained the nuances of that argument. If you don't understand it, I don't know how to word it any more clearly. Its like saying killers lost autonomy by not being able to kick gens more than 8 times: It was abused, the game moved past its necessity, changes were made.
This is a company that wears its hubris like a badge of honor, in my opinion.Its a very valid opinion, and one I agree with. I honestly feel bad for the people who DO care and do their best, because the company image and attitude does them a huge disservice.
Because of that, I genuinely do believe that doing nothing about it would have achieved a similar result to where we're at now.I disagree. The ability to go next on first hook earlier in the match doomed the rest of the players to an extremely lopsided 1v3, and was subject to a single judgement call made by a single player with no authority over the other 3. If it were something like a surrender vote, sure, but one person could hear a nurse screech and decide to nope out at the speed of light. Its like if any sailor was allowed to make the abandon ship! call and not just a captain. Any delay to that, regardless of how minor, gives the other players more time to make up for that deficit. The key to beating a basement bubba is to get as many gens done as fast as possible while he's down there, and the same applies to:
Needing to go through things like the unhook, endurance hit, downed again, picked up and brought to a hook, unhooked again, another endurance hit, downed again, picked up and brought to a hook for the last time.
That time can be the difference between gens getting done or not, and can turn a 1v3 at 5 gens into a 1v3 at 2. That gives far more value than having a chance of 4%ing or losing an entire hook state for trying, or dying prematurely on hook (the only real benefit to which is making hatch spawn a few seconds faster.) And most importantly, if players really want those benefits, they can plan that into their loadout to get them.
It isn't that I don't understand it, it's that it was something that could have been retained. BHVR chose the most punishing and frankly unusual option to get there is all. Honestly, I think that applies to gen kicking as well. And in both situations, things haven't really been addressed any farther than the scope of their nose. Sure, giving up is harder and trials don't last an hour because of gens, but we now have a system that allows us to give up "legally" that pops more often than it doesn't (which to me is adjacent to where the game was when it wasn't "legal"). In the end, it would have fared much better had they addressed those aforementioned larger concerns with the game. But that's honestly neither here nor there since we likely agree that they were never going to do that anyway. 😭
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053122#Comment_4053122
Like everyone said at the time, all it did was sweep the larger issues that led to going next under the rug and removed Survivor autonomy.The biggest issue in going next is behavioral, which can't be fixed by mechanics alone. It can only be adjusted via incentives and disincentives, or by removing choice. It doesn't affect "survivor autonomy" any more than killers not being able to go next does, the only reason it could feel that way is because the survivor side is elimination based, so defeat means being able to leave the match. Since the killer side's defeat is only measurable by the end result screen (due to NOT being elimination based) that "autonomy" never exists.
The 4% was intended to give players a reason to not give up, but its risk factors made it a last ditch effort and not a reliable mechanic. There are ways to boost that number, and most of them are still possible. Luck offerings still work. Slippery Meat is still a perk, as are Deliverance and Wicked. Up the Ante does as well. The game has evolved to give multiple ways to not only make self unhooks more viable, but make players able to work them into their gameplan. The need for it to be a last ditch chance has long since passed in the game's evolution, its just not available for free anymore. And again, if it weren't synonymous with ragequitting over the past few years, they probably wouldn't have needed to make that change.
This system wasn't the best choice, but it wasn't the worst, which would include ignoring it entirely. Most of the games issues involve behavior being a primary component, which is why so many of them don't have easy solutions. Considering the necessity of the 4% has gone down considerably over time, its been relegated to requiring a cost since people can't help themselves. The same goes for a lot of things like camping and tunneling, but they couldn't figure out how to handle them properly so its back to the drawing board, but the anti-go next is in a position where it accomplishes its job well enough while providing alternatives in exchange for a minimal investment. If anything, the abandon feature actually causes issues with it due to disincentivizing the ways self unhooking can actually be used intentionally.
Sure, but it also correlates strongly to game balance. A hopeless game drives hopeless behavior.
While the aforementioned autonomy does factor in the ability to leave when a trial is cooked (which Abandon mostly covers these days), it also affects that 4%. Having to bring a perk or get no chance at all undoubtedly affects player autonomy.
I respect your opinion, but I don't give them enough benefit of the doubt to say that they couldn't find the best way to move forward. I think it's all pretty obvious what should have been done, but they defaulted to what was easiest (both mechanically and socially). This is a company that wears its hubris like a badge of honor, in my opinion. Because of that, I genuinely do believe that doing nothing about it would have achieved a similar result to where we're at now.
-
Tunneling is a battle of attrition. Eventually it wins out unless your team is successful at distracting the Killer well enough. There is no guarantee it won't end in a 4k. It's a really dumb mechanic, in my opinion, but it is what it is.
-
@Aeltere said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052617#Comment_4052617
"Play perfectly" is such an insane reach. There are survivor winstreaks nearing a thousand. Guess that means survivor side needs to be gutted too, huh? Like, I'm sorry, but we clearly cannot have an honest conversation here. Bye.
This is where I get genuinely confused with these topics. If Killer really is as bad off as everyone seems to claim, then why is it necessary to rewrite history to accommodate those claims? As @ratcoffee pointed out, there is no such Survivor winstreak. There is for Killer, but that's been swapped to Survivor for seemingly no reason. It's very similar to when general lingo like "tunneling" is reversed for "gen tunneling" instead of "gen rushing".
I feel like it's an attempt to not only trivialize genuine issues with the game that impact Survivor, but also to simultaneously pull a "it's roughly the same but it still affects me more" sort of tactic. Now I'm not laying this all on OP's doorstep or claiming any of it is even remotely intentional. It's just a very strange psychological thing I've noticed.
-
Anti-go next was a terrible addition. Like everyone said at the time, all it did was sweep the larger issues that led to going next under the rug and removed Survivor autonomy. What did we get as a result of it? No changes to those larger issues (in fact, they've been given the green light post-2025) and a new system that gives you more opportunities to leave the trial and doesn't go very far to improve the actual quality of the game.
-
Back when hit validation was changed, it made sense. It wasn't the same game. But now that we've shifted into such a strong Killer focus, it's really made it unbearable.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052452#Comment_4052452
I'm worried about the (alleged) Zero remake to be honest. A lot of people's big complaints with the game are the exact reasons I love it. It was my first RE game so maybe that's why I'm able to overlook some things, but I personally love the the stricter inventory management (shoutout to the Hookshot), item dropping system, having to juggle two characters at once, and just the general high difficulty of the game.
The biggest complaint I hear is definitely the item dropping system replacing the classic item boxes, and all of the backtracking that causes. I do understand that item boxes were a staple for the series and not having them is kind of weird, but I firmly believe it was the right choice for Zero to try something new, and they mostly succeeded IMO. As a new player with no real knowledge of the series, I didn't have much problem with it. Zero's maps are designed around the system. Each of the main areas is either small (like the train) or has a central-ish main room that you'll pass through a lot which effectively becomes your item box. I've always maintained that most of the complaints of backtracking in Zero stem from poor management. In Zero, you'll only ever need to backtrack as far as you left the items whereas in the others you can only sort your inventory at several pre-determined points which can be pretty awkward to reach. I did so much more backtracking in REmake than I ever did in Zero personally, but I understand it's not everyone's idea of fun.
I see a lot of people say the solution is to "just add item boxes" but I don't think it can work that way. If they replace item dropping completely and return to the item boxes then the game loses one of its core features that differentiate it from the rest of the games. And if they add item boxes in addition to item dropping then the inventory management becomes so easy that a limited inventory might as well not exist. I think the ideal solution is to stick with the original item dropping system, but make it so items you've previously dropped carry over when you enter the next big area. The biggest point of friction with the system — that even I can acknowledge — is definitely trying to carry all of your stuff over to the next "main" area of the game once you progress. It's mostly just busywork that serves to slow you down, so I wouldn't mind if they cut it by having a little cutscene of Rebecca carrying a backpack or something that has all of your previously-dropped stuff in once you reach the next milestone. That would be my solution, but who knows what they'll do?
There's a few story elements that I can also concede are pretty weak (which I won't get into here for the sake of anyone who hasn't played it and doesn't want spoilers) but anyone familiar with the game will probably know what I mean. The thing I really want out of a Zero remake is a brushed up story with better character development and better connection to the rest of the franchise (especially 1). Most of the gameplay should stay in tact as far as I'm concerned, but given how much hate Zero gets I would not be surprised if they went nuclear with the changes and we ended up with a remake in the style of RE3R.
I'm holding out hope that it'll be good and faithful, but we'll have to see given how much a mixed back the remakes are lol
In my opinion, Resident Evil hasn't been for RE fans since RE6 capped. There is valid criticism toward 6, but the characters felt like themselves and the plot felt at home with the franchise. Immediately starting with Revelations 2, it just hasn't been the same. The characters are written like different people and the plots feel strange. Prior to that, we had stinky plots like Degeneration and Revelations (again, in my opinion) but it wasn't anywhere near as disjointed as it is now. And now in addition to Zero, the CODE:Veronica leaks only further reinforce that.
It's not just RE though. It's very disappointing to see how good these franchises could be before they were all watered down. Doesn't really make you want to be a gamer anymore.
-
Just wait until you hear about the people that want it to be even more severe.
-
@SkeletonDance said:
I would add @SoGo and @ImWinston because most of the time I see their comments + ImWinston is always starting a comments with his iconic bullet in text
I really always enjoy Winston's presence so I agree. 😎
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
Honestly, I'm gonna say Balrog, coz despite all the grief people give them they still press on and try to engage with us.
Same with Mandy, I'm grateful for the effort they put in.I respect your honesty. 😄 eyes strained, teeth gritting audibly, and sweat beading on my face as I hold in every negative thing I can utter about the duo
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
I'd be happy with another Resident Evil Chapter. Although even just another cosmetic collection would be nice. Still waiting on Krauser and Billy Coen as legendary skins.
Hopefully they get Billy before the rumored Zero remake. I don't wanna see how they fix what ain't broken. 😭
-
In my personal opinion, what we've been seeing lately is what has been hinted at for a long time now—Survivors have been nerfed consistently in very bizarre and unusual ways for so long now that they've started to adapt (again). Gens are flying, without any sort of gen rushing meta, because they know how to prioritize them. Even solo trials are less susceptible to 3-gens than they used to be, in my experience.
Parallel to that, we have Killers doing the same old thing as aggressively as ever. Instead of trying to improve their own gameplay, they're doubling down on micro play and being rewarded for it (again). It could never be that maybe they should improve as well. Of course not. The answer must be to punish Survivor again for merely learning how to navigate things even if they still lose in the end.
My feedback is sort of useless at this point, in all honesty. I wanted BHVR to lock in with their 2025 claims but as we all knew what was going to happen deep down, they dropped the ball. Again, my opinion, but I feel like that was the biggest middle finger they could have ever given the players and it dashes any hope I ever could have had about them trying to improve the game. And that's putting my feelings on the matter lightly.
-
And look! Even Unknown decided to show up!
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Not gonna lie: Some of y'all are so out of touch with what the game is actually like that this conversation is clearly pointless. Have fun continuing to tell yourselves lies.
But you're supposed to be an active hoper
-
@Shinkiro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051996#Comment_4051996
It's not wrong, but feel free to keep thinking that. False statments on the other hand are. I don't think you even know what being objective even means when you already admitted bias lol
Hey don't steal my line like that.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051967#Comment_4051967
You're the furthest thing from objective.
What does that even mean
-
I think it could be fun. I think being able to DC during it without a penalty is good too because it prevents things from getting too competitive.
-
@Shinkiro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051967#Comment_4051967
Nothing you said was the "objective truth". Just yet more bias nonsense and its ridiculous you'd frame it as such just to support your obviously bias nonsense argument for "your side".
You're entitled to your opinion—even if it's wrong.
-
Chase is pretty lacking, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I don't think pointing to things that were a problem 6 years ago is any reason not to try to improve the situation now.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050734#Comment_4050734
Yep. It's 100% rigged in my opinion. The only bit I'm uncertain about is whether or not it was intentional. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it was just an oversight in the survey design — the same as many of the community satisfaction surveys have awkward wording or bad question design.
But objectively the vote was not fair and no effort was made to remediate it, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was intended either.
This is purely my opinion on the matter, but I'm far past the point of thinking these things are mistakes. They are so consistent over such a long span of time that we have to start believing it's intentional. While there's certainly always the possibility that the poll design was a slip up, it's not the first poll they've ever ran and they've made no attempt to correct that. So for the pendulum to swing in the direction that would make them the most money… It doesn't look too good, in my opinion. 😖
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051473#Comment_4051473
You're a Survivor-biased liar who completely ignores how anti-camping and tunneling protections got implemented in the first place and were recently buffed, as well as how that role has received other protections like extended hook timers. All of this while PTBs and presentations that further punish and villify Killers get created. In spite of these protections, a number of players from that role still complain about how they don't have enough. If anything, such players don't improve.
Of course I'm a Survivor main. I don't claim not to be. But calling me a liar in the face of objective truth and the things we all see with our own eyes just because it doesn't line up with your own perspective of what you think is happening is certainly a choice.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051453#Comment_4051453
At this point, this isn't even satire, it's clairvoyance.
-
No. And regardless of what anyone says, reshade isn't a big deal. If they refuse to implement better accessibility options, might as well use something that helps you out. I personally use it to make the game brighter because it's too dark unless the room is pitch black.
-
As this thread proves, it won't happen. Call it "us vs them" all you want, but Killer players and Survivor players operate very differently. Whether it's intentional or not, certain Killer mains will lie about their experience and what they want in order to fulfill their ability to maintain a 4k average* (*against active players). It doesn't matter what the Survivor experience is like at all or what it needs to be able to function. That is all secondary to making sure Killer feels better. There isn't any more evidence you need toward that between 2022 and 2025. We've seen Survivor play styles struck down where they stand while camping/tunneling/slugging is still going strong. In fact, we've left efforts to improve that behind while still maintaining Survivor nerfs that were meant to even it out.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/463476/slugging-and-tunneling
Respectfully, they are not the issue. The issue is that, instead of teaching players how to play their overwhelming game, BHVR gives buffs to the Survivor role that won't make any difference if, as mentioned, players aren't taught how to play the game.
If this were true, we wouldn't still be arguing about gen speeds. They're proof that Survivor is still resilient and can improve against the odds. At some point, it's not all their fault.
-
The "rats" argument that got Distortion and Wake Up! nerfed were never real. Sure rats exist, but the true purpose was that Survivors could counter strong aura builds (to an extent) and they were able to open the gates too fast. Bearing that in mind, in order to get a Distortion buff through we'd have to wait for BHVR to decide Survivors are due for an anti-aura meta which would probably be short-lived or aura reading on Killer would have to get SO overbearing that it represents a vast majority of players and therefore they'd grace us with maybe a reversion-in-PTB-turned-slight-buff-in-live update.
Long story short, it probably won't happen. As we've seen, it's harder to get something back once it's taken away.
-
@Kupega said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051198#Comment_4051198
They are allowed make adjustments, or at least with Pinhead they could rework an add-on so I imagine as long as BHVR can't make money from it then some changes are fine
They are so confusing. 😩
-
Cue 10 threads about how that's still not strong enough and gens are flying.