Utna
Utna
About
- Username
- Utna
- Joined
- Visits
- 688
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Orion said:
Gen stopper: Corrupt Intervention, Overcharge, Pop Goes The Weasel, Thanatophobia.
Yes, I kinda think gen stopper builds might be a viable solution for this killer.
Puking on gens and windows in a restricted area (3 gens tactic). Letting people go away as soon as they're sick, and defending the clean fountains within your turf so they run out of auto-heal and are obliged to find a cure right in front of you ...
She might be all about territory defense after all.
-
Alright thanks :)
-
So many things that are still unclear (to me at least) right now ! The terror radius things are quite confusing, since you cannot ear it yourself as a killer.
But also, is there a way to accelerate to sickness ? Like puking multiple times on someone, or using add-ons that "improve" the vile bile.
-
There a lot of threads about the new DS, but none with someone stating the actual changes. Can someone explain them to me, or post a link so I can inform myself ?
-
@powerbats said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/350062#Comment_350062
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/461/I5NH48CUHXOY.jpg
No you just hate it when I use facts and logic on you and destroy your the hatch is a free escape nonsense every time. It doesn't matter how often you say it or try and twist the meaning around it'll never be a "Free Escape".
I also wouldn't resort to the full on logic and facts definitions if you wouldn't go full rant thread trying to prove your invalid argument is right and flaming me in the process.
Oh and I guess all the times i've agreed with your points about buffs/nerfs means I was arguing about semantics and was condescending.
Now I'm going to actually be condescending.
"The fact I've agreed with you and others obviously means I'm not mostly condescending and don't just care about semantics. Oh and all the killer buffs/survivor nerfs threads and comments, the tech support help posts i've made.
Yep those definitely prove i'm always condescending and only care about semantics, whoops that's wrong. It proves you're wrong once again. As I've told you before don't try and insult me when you know you're just going to get called out on it and proven wrong again." - End condescending facts statement.
@Utna I've tried the easy method on this one and the others always saying it's free so I've just resorted to giving them flat out facts. They can't try and argue after that without proving that they don't care about facts.
They just want to be handed an actual free 4th kill without having to go earn it 1st and if you look at some of their posts you'll see.
-
@powerbats said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/350007#Comment_350007
Don't you just hate when facts keeping putting the lie to this statement.
Free escape, this isn't true because free means getting something for nothing and in your control. - The survivors have to power at least 2 gens in order to get the hatch to spawn. The other 3 survivors must die for the last person to get a chance at the hatch. The last person has to make an escape without getting hit/grabbed/downed etc.
To be free after that point the survivor would also have to be able to go to the hatch and not be able to be hit/downed/mori'd/grabbed by the killer in any way shape or form.
For all those reasons the hatch at that point isn't free and that is a fact because the reasons listed above.
Now if someone does nothing all match and just hides and camps the hatch and jumps in yes that's a free hatch escape. You could argue that technically they did do something which is evade you the entire match to get to that point.
The very definition of free is to get something for nothing, to have something be in your control. To receive something of value with no expense or effort.
Free definitions::
adjective:
1.not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
Meaning you could walk to the hatch and jump in in full view of the killer and never be touched and thus escape.
adverb:
2.without cost or payment.
LOL . Just a wild guess but what if she meand "free escape" as a figure of speach ? Come on dude she was not being litteral ! Just as if I was telling you : "it rains cats and dogs", would you tell me how it is physically impossible, or would you let it go with the flow of the conversation ?
Anyway, I truly liked how you handled the argument, with a swiff of philosophy and the concrete definition of the "free" word ...
but you might want to pick better fights next time 😅
-
@PigNRun said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/348599#Comment_348599
Why would it? Solidarity gives you a static 50% of your healing bar after you fully heal someone. There is no benefit from skillchecks.
Are you ABSOLUTLY sure it works like that ? I mean those new perks arn't even finalized at this point.
-
@OMagic_ManO said:
Solidarity, Botany Knowledge, Self Care and Leader/Resilience.
Will make a lovely beneficial healing build and good for Altruism points, will definitely make healing much more wanted, Nurse's Calling will be in the Killer slots MUCH more.
By the way, I wonder how Solidarity will interract with Autodidact.
-
Dying light / Coulrophobia / Dark devotion / Sloppy Butcher
Once struck, the obsession carries Coulrophobia away with him/her. Tunnel him/her to death ... seems easy, since you'll just have to stab once to down. Enjoy Dying light. 🤡
-
Just sharing my recent experience ; maybe you might find it usefull.
So I haven't been playing for a while, and started again as rank 15. Right now it sounds more difficult to climb the ranks as a survivor than as a killer. I believe there are some low rank survivor who are good at looping and hidding, but there also seems to be some dc'ers and hook farmers who's behavior jeopardizes the whole team.
Anyway, as a killer, its been fun with 3 or 4 kills/game and without needing to camp or tunnel much. Realizing that I didn't had to carry arround the perfect meta perks and add-on to have a fair chance to catch survivors, made me try some new builds or killers I didn't get much bloodpoint into. It's been refreshing.
But today, as I was testing a joke build (terror radius wraith + insidious), I ran into some dude that couldn't possibly be around rank 9 (wich is my current rank). The guy was running object of obsession and looped me for some time despite my best efforts. When I realised I wasn't going to get him, I left him alone. But the dude followed me and covered the tracks of the victim I just found ... and here it was : I decided to disconnect (wich is very rare) because instead of doing gens as he could have, the dude choosed to ruin my chances to play with other players whose skills where more adapted to my own.
In conclusion, I'd say there was some reason why deranking was forbidden (or frowned upon) in the first place. Strong players bullying less skilled people where already a thing, but with the new ranking system, it seems that the bullies will get some fresh meat without even bending a single rule.
Well done behavior, now I'll get punished for trying new builds and tactics by random bullies who just await the opportunity to be paired with casual players like me. Or am I wrong and is there a logical explanation to this nonsense ?
-
I didn't played too many killer games since the patch came out, but I'm pretty sure the lag is MUCH more intense than before. I hope there is a way to fix it because I was just starting to get confortable as a main killer.
-
@Dwight_Fairfield said:
friendlykillermain said:@Dwight_Fairfield said:
friendlykillermain said:
@Dwight_Fairfield said: friendlykillermain said:
i think we can all agree that the legions most redeeming quality is that fact they are scream inspired and they serve as an unintentional huntress buff
How are they Scream inspired? They look like Death Garden knock offs. teenagers with a highly marketable mask and wielding ghost faces iconic weapon of choice the jagged hunting knife fits to me
You have no idea they are teenagers looking at them in the game. This is a gang of four peple. In the Scream movies it was two teens at most teamed up. Their mask looks nothing like Ghostface. And as for the hunting knife, its far from being iconically associated with Ghostface. Its like saying Michael Myers is associated with Norman Bates because they both use kitchen knives.
but hey they are associated norman bates was an influence for carpenters classic Halloween and the movie actor (forgot her name because Anthony Perkins was better and for some reason i can only remember one actor per movie no idea why) even made a cameo in h20 which was awesome especially with the theme that played and for the legion read their story's and lore it clearly states they are young adults
You're missing the point. They are not associated in the sense that people look at Michael with a kitchen knife and think Norman Bates. Just like a hunting knife doesn't evoke Ghostface.
What you're talking about there with Psycho is it influenced Halloween in the sense that the normal looking boy next door is actually a killer. That's the influence. Halloween's introduction to Michael is him as a 6 year old kid who kills his sister while she is naked in her room. Norman Bates' first kill is killing naked Janet Leigh in her motel room in her shower. Both done with a kitchen knife. But you don't look at Michael with the knife and think Norman Bates. Just like you don't look at a hunting knife and think Ghostface.
Your claims of similarity are superficial stretches.
Btw Janet Leigh made a cameo in Halloween H20 because her daughter is Jamie Lee Curtis who as we all know plays Laurie Strode.
You're right about the knives. Anyway, I guess the point is that if DBD developpers did get (somehow) the Scream licence, they wouldn't need to make a whole new chapter about it ... all they need to do now is to give Legion a Scream cosmetic ... and let's rock baby ! It might also work with the Purge movies wich is nice too.
-
@RuneStarr said:
Can't we all just be a big banana split (with pineapple topping) and get along!
Sounds rather distastefull (I'm 107 % serious there).
-
@BACKSTABBER said:
Do they actually get more BPs or smth by escaping in healty status?? or is completely ridiculous?They don't. However, the player who heal them gets altruistic blood points. But If you're talking about survivors who selfcare themselves just before the exit gates ... I guess they're just fishing for an extra Skill check to make +150 bp ... that's just lame in my opinion.
-
@Attackfrog said:
Khalednazari said:Why will a survivor wield a tanto point knife?
New survivor tool...you can now cut the killer to stun him/her and it makes for infinite decisive strikes!
Not op at all!
Infinite DS is a big No No. But what about a perk that change the end game ... Let's say : if you are the last survivor alive, the hatch doesn't open at all. Instead you get the opportunity to kill the killer by backstabbing him/her. Off course the killer would have a large speed debuff. The amount of blood point given for such an action should be quite substatial.
-
@CrystalRedPunx said:
Technically any killer can fall victim to SWF, but I also don't see SWF as that large of an obstacle.Player 1 :"Hey hello you, fancy joining me to repair this generator ?"
Player 2 :" I'm cleasing a totem right now."
Player 1 : "Allright guys the killer is a copycat." ... Starts running.
Killer : "Wait, I'm your real teamate, I swear !"Results : epic fails all around.
-
Could he be the vilain from the Split and Glass movies ... or maybe something inspired by that character ?
I'm truly interested in the answer of that question since I didn't see those movies. But as we're talking about split personalities and multiple powers thought that was worth a shot.
-
@HellDescent said:
Who said that was the killer ?
This is actually Meg with her Deathgarden mask. I guess she found the knife on the way and kept it to stick it to Dwights whenever they try to molest her in lockers. Dwight are such pervs ... -
@powerbats said:
@Arsoul said:
Name themCanada
China
Germany
Grenada
Japan
Norfolk Island
South Korea
Liberia
Vietnamif i might interferre at this point:
i am from germany and we do not celebrate thanksgiving...
i mean... this is an american thing, this happened in the american history, why would germany celebrate it?Most of those countries have US military bases ... that's why I presume. So of course, American people living there can still celebrate this holyday. The fact that some of them believe we (we as in the majority of non-american living in these countries) actually celebrate it, is beyond me.
-
@SovererignKing said:
Didnt see a bunch of Americans storming the forums screaming about the Chinese New Year event a while back... but ok... I forgot other countries just love to bash America for the hell of it cause we’re “Selfish Mericans”.Regardless of why there is an event, and what holiday it’s centered around, why can’t we all just enjoy any event? Extra BP, some cosmetics, good times all around.
Any event sounds good to me, but why would "ANY event" should be american ... See my point ?
And please let's not pretend we can compare Thanksgiving to the Chinese new year celebration ... The later is more like Christmass in terms of number of people celebrating it, and in thousand of years of tradition (was a pagan holydays at first) ... though Christmass can take many different form in various countries (St Nichola's day, Reyes Magos, ..., etc.)
Anyway ... DBD's Christmass event exists, and Chinese's new year celebration too, and that's alright because none of those holidays are tied to only ONE country ... these are cultural cornerstones in either occidental or oriental cultures ... sorry for the shocker dude, but Thanksgiving is NOT, because this is about of a piece of the US history.
Also the problem isn't to celebrate Thanksgiving in DBD once in a while ... because yeah it could be fun sometimes, why not ? The problem is people assuming there should be a Thanksgiving event, while at the same time they never thought about celebrate Bastille's day or any other country related celebration.
-
As others pointed out, I'm pretty sure germans don't celebrate Thanksgiving ; and big shocker ... neither do the frenchs. In fact I believe that people celebrating Thanksgiving anywhere in Europe are either american imigrants, or bored people who have nothing better to do than having a party on a special day, just because they saw it on television.
As for why some of us non-American might feel offended about people asking for a thanksgiving event ... Probably because we know that BHRV isn't a US company (they're obviously Canadian) and the OP felt they might choose (of all holydays in the world) the american one.
Chinese New year event is different, because despite how we (occidental people) call it, it is not tied to the people's republic of China, but this is the regular new year day in most Asian countries (billions of people). Oh and this holyday have most certainly been celebrated for a few thousand years ... what about Thanksgiving ?
-
@Wolf74 said:
@Peasant said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
If you did a qualitative analysis the results would be different. A number of my +'s for killers were buffs to "Spies of the Shadows". Who even uses SITS?!
Before the perk got gutted, it was a very powerful perk and I used it a lot.
Btw... +/- things… if something affects survivor in general it should be worth "1", while any change to specific killer should only the worth "1/4".
That would get closer results.
Also minor nerfs/buffs should also be just "1/2".
And bugs and fixes should never count anything. Even the removal of infinites should not count.Closer results indeed, but still wrong as long as your base data is the number of buffs. Even with quarters and double buffs, your appreciation of those values will end up being based on your personal opinion (wich I personally agree with but that isn't the point). I mean, we can't go around and give each patch a grade based on our personal experience with the game ... See how you liked SITS and how Peasant doesn't ... your rate for a modification on this perk would be different I suppose.
There it is, we cannot use patch information as a data to understand the game balance ... unless we include to these information their objective effect to the game. What I mean by effect to the game is "numberr of escaped survivors", "number of disconnection", "number of survivors being hit".
-
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
Who is us ... do I know you ? And why such results would be biased ... results are results, just like facts are facts ... the only way to add subjectiveness to results is to keep some information to yourself.
What @friendlykillermain is suggesting is that while the number of killer buffs compared to survivor buffs is greater, many of these buffs are insignificant things, like the 2 Spies in the Shadows buffs.
Of course we agree, but are we still discussing the number of buffs / debuffs ? I thought we where past that point. Thought the average number of escaping survivors per game between each patches would be much more representative of the game balance.
What do you think ?
-
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
Who is us ... do I know you ? And why such results would be biased ... results are results, just like facts are facts ... the only way to add subjectiveness to results is to keep some information to yourself.
-
@White_Owl said:
As others said, buff/nerfs are not equal among survivors and killers. A single survivors buff affects all survivors, while a buff to the Wraith affects him and only him.
To make a more accurate representation, I'd assign a +1 for any character affected by a change at that time.
Also changes to a single killer's power should not be considered as "multiple buffs", especially when many addons are changed, because that would be a way to inflate the numbers while the result would be to buff a singular aspect of the killer side of the game.
For example a buff to one killer nowadays would give a +1, a buff to all killers would give +12, while one to survivors would give +14*. Changes to pallets etc that affects both in opposite ways should be counted only one side though because otherwise you would artificially inflate the number and a single change would result as double.While these thoughts are interesting they are still wrong. We can't judge a balance by the number of weights put in a plate, but only by HOW MUCH they weigth.
To sum it up: 10 x 1 Kg isn't greater than 1 x 10Kg
-
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
-
@Radiant your sheets have nothing to do with balance nor the very idea of it. Just to have the concept straight, I would advise you to check the basics again. Take an old school balance with two plates and weights. Put something in one plate and the empty one will rise ... Until you put some weight there to balance things up. To reach a perfect balance, you may hit the scale with only one weight, or you could put multiple little one on the plates .
It does not matter how many weights you add to the scale, all it matter at the end is to have both plates on the same level.
Same goes for game design and balance. It doesn't matter how many buff you add, because as long as the balance isn't right, you NEED to keep adding them.
-
Just played 4 killer games tonight. I'm rank 3 and none of my queue time went over 3 minutes (Western Europe, PC player). In fact since I'm using Steam's internet browser right now, I didn't have time to answer before I'm done playing for the day.
Just saying that If people truly didn't play survivor as much as before, I would have wait much longer. I did stopped to play killer during the event because of stupidly long queue times, but everything is back to normal now (here anyway).
So I believe this whole discussion is pointless, unless of course there are places where people tend to play killer more than survivor ... In that case, please don't ask the devs to fix a problem about YOUR area by wrecking the game balance for everyone. Before moving things around your personnal problem, please consider asking other people what they feel about it.
Who else have very long killer time waiting queue right now, and where are you playing ? If this is the problem of a specific region, how can we fix it ?
-
What better killer(s) for the winter saison then GREMLINS of course
Survivor might be the old asian dude in the curio shop (because DBD have only a few old characters). His power should be Mogwai related (go fetch this, go find that, sing to distract the killer, ...)
New item: THE MOGWAI. Take Gizmo in your backpack and find other survivors more easily. Gizmo hums his lullaby stronger and stronger when closer to a teamate, but he stops singing when in the killer's terror radius. With add-ons Gizmo might give some buffs to each survivor close enough earing his song.
The map would be the mall in the Gremlin 1 movie.
(But hey seriously I'd support Pinehead in Leaviathan's Maze). -
@Entità said:
@Utna Of course you can! It is your full right to choose with whom to have sex, dine, go to the cinema, play poker or football or bridge, and you can do it because it's about personal matters, about your private life. It does not work like that, however, in official and public events, in a tournament or in classified matches, where the arbitrary decisions of individuals can cause unjust damage to other players and, regardless of this, where it is not conceivable that each choose their opponents. There is a system of scores and ranks that, even if imperfect, try to reflect the quality of each player according to objective parameters: the individual whim cannot have citizenship in the combinations based on this system, while your speech is fully valid in KYF mode. Ranked trials are under tournament's rules, friendly trials are under friends' rules.While I fully agree about tournaments not being a place where we can choose to block some individuals, I believe you stoped talking specificly about DBD just to make a point. I've heard about DBD tournaments where almost all play play Nurse and Claudette ; of course everyone should be able to participate and nobody should have a saying in the pairings there, because ultimately there is a prize to win. However DBD's ranking system is not about who you can beat (as it is in a tournament), but how consistently you reach a specific set of objectives.
Let's be honest for a minute, DBD's ranking system while usefull to separate new players and seasoned ones, has certainly let people reach rank 1 without needing them to play against each possible opponents. Also, let's consider how depiping has been a trend, and how many SWF players shamlessly team up with rank 15 buddies, to mess up with the pairing system ... as many people said earlier in this forum, there isn't much left of a competitive environment in DBD's ranking system. Ranking in this game is more of a personal matter and I guess it is pointless (to say the least) to compare it to a tournament system.
Now, should I need it to play KYF to have casual games ? I SHOULD NOT of course, because there is a middle ground between tournaments and KYF. You're telling me to go play with my friends exclusively, but this is not what I want ! All I want is to not be obliged to play with people who has been rude to me before. Think of it like that: I may end up having lunch in the same restaurant room as people I don't like, but of course, I'm free to not sit at their table ... and if they're no table left for me to go, it's up to me to decide to change my mind, wait, or go look for a different restaurant.
-
@Entità said:
@Utna Being able to block an unwelcome opponent is a dangerous power, because it is arbitrary. Players are not referees, rarely judge according to objectivity, impartiality and detachment: there would instead be the highest risk of revenge against good opponents, who are afraid to face, or petty choices, dictated by selfishness, anger, frustration . No player can stand as a judge of the other players.Judging people and being arbitrary is part of the human nature ; this is how we end up meeting people we love and others we hate sometimes. Being able to judge wether or not we want to play with some individual is not something we should leave to a judge ... would you let a judge decide your next sex partner ? OK the comparison is a bit streched but think about it: in real life we consider as a right the action to choose people we'd like to hang with and have fun with ... why would it be different in video games ?
As I said earlier, weather it is at a table in a poker club, or even in the kinder garden, there are people we like and other we don't ... That's how it is. In our proffessional life mostly, we need to deal with people we dislike ; of course, we get paid for the trouble. But could you explain why should we NEED to suffer the same treatment when we're playing a video game for our entertainement ?
Of course some petty losers might abuse the "block" system, but isn't it their right to not play against players they consider too strong for them ? Let's even consider all the complaints in this forum about the ranking system not being usefull ... and how players get bullied and humiliated ... all this frustration would be relieved if every one had the option to ignore the players they consider as "odd ranked", or "toxic", or "cheaters".
And let's not forget that anyone abusing that block system would in fact ban himself from potential games (not the other way around). This means that if I block people for no sensible reason, I'll be out of potential opponent very soon and my queue times might last forever ... About that, a "Reset all block" button might be needed in case of emergency.
-
@SoylentPixie said:
@Entità said:
@BACKSTABBER @Bug_Reporter @EntityDispleased @Rebel_Raven @redsopine1 @ShrimpTwiggs @thrashed2pieces @Greater_Cultist @twistedmonkey @MuttonChops @Peasant @ProximityOfToxicity @Nick @Utna @DarkWo1f997I have read with pleasure all your constructive answers regarding the definition of "toxicity", therefore I suggest to move on to the analysis of its possible causes and the appropriate remedies.
In my opinion, several factors are involved in "toxicity", from the mildest to the most serious:
1) poor knowledge of game mechanics;
2) immaturity due to age or character;
3) irritation for unfortunate events (for example: being the first survivor chased and hooked by the killer or losing precious minutes in a long and unsuccessful chase);
4) anger for the defeat suffered, with possible loss of valuable items, add-ons or offerings;
5) intolerance to game dynamics considered unbalanced or buggy;
6) rebellion against the opponent's unsportsmanlike behavior;
7) frustration for the continuous repetition of the facts indicated in the previous points, by pure chance or by personal or team demerits;
8) rudeness, incivility or personal problems poured into the game;
9) sabotage of the game or other hostile purposes against the community of players or developers;
10) criminal purposes.The ideal would be for each player to commit himself to the correctness and respect of others, but it is purely utopian to imagine that all are good and honest by mere bond of conscience. The practical solution that I suggest is a global rethink of the system of reporting wrong conduct, imposing something more than just pressing a key: the player must attach a brief description of the fact complained, so that the managers of the game can:
A) understand if the report is founded or not (for example: the accusation of camping or blinding during the break of a pallet is unfounded, because they belong to the tactics of play and are consistent with the purpose of the role);
to compare similar reports and to understand if the accused player is habitually or only occasionally incorrect;
C) make the necessary checks;
D) to hear the reasons of the accused player;
E) adopt appropriate sanctions.On the other hand, to those who suffer these disrespectful behaviors I ask to be reasonably patient, in order not to flood the managers of the game with a million reports.
The same goes for the "toxicity" in the forum, of course.
You know, it's not very often that I see someone take a fair and analytical view on this subject without resorting to 'well killers / survivors do this so....." Both sides have degree's of toxicity we all know this, even if we just want to root for our side and occasionally are biased, but both sides have generated so much animosity for each other that it's just become a s**t slinging circle that never ends. A huge problem is that both sides have both valid and utterly invalid points when it comes to what they believe toxicity actually is, and when it comes to the forums, a lot of the time both sides are way too invested in one upmanship over the other side to actually sit and talk like adults instead of the constant dragging down into cheap insults.
I've seen forum members i once respected suddenly turn to insults, trying to outlaw what they deem 'non experienced players' from giving their points of view and even employing well known troublemakers to stand as guard dog over their posts to viciously insult anyone who does not agree with their point of view, which makes me a little sad.
So for this thread and your handling of the subject matter, and being willing to listen to all points of view in a mature and calm way....i salute you.
I won't go over what i consider toxic as i think others have underlined that already and I like the idea of actually moving on to realistic solutions.
I have never liked the idea of one button press encompassing a whole host of things, it gives those angered over a simple loss way too much leeway to waste devs time. Allow people to be more specific so that the people looking at these reports can weed out the complete wastes of time thrown in by people who are simply sore that they have lost. I get it, we are never all going to be the bestest of friends, the game itself doesn't exactly breed harmony, but until we can start being adults about it, why should they listen to us?
I would fully support the OP's suggestions if the chance ever came up of it possibly being implemented, I can't see anything wrong with those ideas, it would weed out the time wasting and false reports as well as allowing us to give a more detailed account of actual legitimate complaints rather than simply trying to find a vague connection to one of the limited choices when unique situations arise.
I liked the sound that, but I believe there is a reason why connected and IRL relationship doesn't work the same way.
In real life ... let's say in a cardboard club, you may look at the room as you enter it and choose not to sit at the table of someone you know as a cheater, or as a bitter person. This is only when there is nowhere esle to sit, that you must go to these people's table, even though you don't want to play with them. In this situation, you have to try your best to have a good time, and thus you might care more about patience and diplomacy. But over the time, "douchebags" will be fled by most players and will have fewer opportunities to play a game, thus leading them to find a different hobby.
In DBD, players are chosen randomly, not taking into account how many people they've pissed off. Being banned isn't a concern for them either, because as long as they don't cheat, or insult people in a very DIRTY way, they'll have nothing to fear about. This means that you can't ask them to be self conscious about their actions, because instead of trying to fit into a living community, like the cardboard club we've mentioned before ; all they are asked to, is to follow a set of very basic rules.
The point is people won't stop trolling just because we ask them to think about it ... It might help of course, but some people just uses the internet to feed their saddistic nature. I wish there where another way, but I believe that we will never have a "civilized" envirronment in a place where people can be ######### without worrying of being cast out.
To fix this problem, I hope the devs will add a "self bann" button. After a game, when you see the name of a player you didn't liked to play with, you should be able to say: "I will not play with you again." And from now on the algorythm taking care of the pairings will not make you pop in the same lobby as those players. Trolls will be quickly avoided by most people, and players who hit the "self bann" button for no reason might find it hard to find any more games as well.
-
Considering that each side (survivors / killers) have a goal in this game (escaping / sacrificing 4 survivors), I would consider as "Toxic": any action that wasn't made in the pursuit of some those objectives.
To make this definition complete, we should also talk about secondary objectives. Any action made by a player, toward the achievement of a secondary objective (ex: cleansing totems), while he could instead complete his primary objective, shall fall into the toxic definition.
Let's test this definition: CASE 1 KILLER. A killer hook a survivor midgame and start camping him ; is he toxic ? Yes, because his goal is to sacrifice all 4 people and not just settle for 1 kill unless ... late game when he knows he can't reach his primary objective ; he secures 1 kill to fulfill his secondary objectives.
CASE 2 SURVIVOR. A survivor cleanses a dull totem after the gates are powered, or heal someone at that moment ; is he toxic ? YES he is because he should try to reach his main objective instead. But if those actions where taken before the gates are powered, he won't be toxic as long as he believes that his doing will give him a better chance to escape later.
-
@Sythalin said:
15-20 games played today, 100% NOED.After it's ridiculously unneeded buff to cause EXPOSED on every tier, when should we expect to just become baseline for every killer?
Actually I doubt it, but I would be glad if they made it baseline. The fact is NOED is a dramatic perk which add to the suspense of the game by hard pressuring the survivors right before their exit. It add a simple question to the end game : "who will be brave enough to not flee for their life and, find that godamn totem ?" This switch of tempo right before the end, is fun and exactly what should be expected from an horror game.
But why do survivor don't like NOED, are they not up for the extra challenge and surprise ? Of course they are, but here's the thing ... they LOVE to stick around when the gates are powered. They hidde in bushes and farm every tiny bit of bloodpoint they can, and of course this has been so easy for them, that they usually don't feel the URGE to escape at all !
Those survivor trolls, are always looking for the hatch instead of exiting through already wide open gates, and eventually they take it for granted. So of course, when people are tired that survivors get to jerk around instead of moving on to another game, they play NOED to extra pressure them and eventually teach them a lesson. But do they learn ?
HELL NO THEY DON'T ! Instead they insult the killer in the after game lobby and go straight to this forum to complain about the very existence of this perk. So all I have to say to them is:
"Stop bitching and do yourself a favor: leave the f***ing game when the gates are powered !" -
@CoolAKn said:
@HellDescent said:
No unfortunately, because they are not gonna hear the end of it from survivor mains and they'll be upsetting the majority of the player population.I'm a survivor main and I'm all for this. I really dislike ghosting. I play solo, so it doesn't matter to me really if I know what the killer's perks and add-ons were. If I really want to know, I would spectate the rest of the match.
Same. When I play survivor, I'm on my own too. But I've read reapetidly in this forum that an average lobby had about 40% solo survivors, and the rest being SWF (many of them being 2 player parties). That means solo players are a minority ... who knows how SWF players will react to that fix ? Of course not all SWF player want to exploit this old problem, but maybe there is more than enough of them to put DBD in trouble.
-
@Mister_xD said:
they said they wanted to change that long ago, but as the time goes by i doubt that more and more...Yeah, about that ... when the mid chapter patch came out, I was like #########! Because instead of doing this (hidding vital information from dead players), they actually did change the HUD, to make tiny icons keeping track of what item or add-on I'm using !
So They overlooked an almost 2 years old strategy breaking problem (don't bother end game strategy guys !), and choosed to go for the quality of life changes ... It sounds so stupid. I don't know what to think about it.
-
@only1biggs said:
I also see that my admirer is back, giving me those fat LOL's. Howdy stranger.
@Giche Is this considered bullying to you too, when it happens to me, or only the people you know and agree with?
I just LOLed you dude. I mean you begged for it right ?
-
@SovererignKing said:
Vecors said:@Master said:
Because something doesnt happen all the time does that make it balanced?
Yep, thats why Nurse wont get nerfed. "you deserve to lose the game within 2 min cause that guy played nurse for 200h straight". Just BHVR mindset.
Exactly. Survivors want Nurse nerfed, they better be willing to make an exchange. Nurse’s design makes her the only one capable of standing up against those “SWF Death Squads”. The other Killers can pull it off it the squad screws up enough, but it’s highly unlikely they will. It’s a stupid mindset, but until Survivors are willing to budge, Killers won’t budge either. Survivors are stuck with “######### GOD NURSE” till they give the terrestrial Killers a fair shake.
Of course they want the Nurse to be nerfed ... and why is she the only one to still have a fair shot against SWF death squads ? Because she doesn't rely on stealth or any surprise effect ... she just cuts through the loops.
There is a reason why most bottom tier killer have a stealth or surprise based power (Freddy, wraith, trapper, Pig)... this is because SWF players can negate any subtile tactics. When one SWF witnesses an information, it is given to its teamates immediately through voice communication. The Spirit has been build around that idea and provide false information ... this is why she is the "mind game" killer.
So in the end, I deeply regret that there is hardly more than one way to play killer effectively (loop breaking is the one), just because SWF break the game with their voice communication. Also it is silly to see that survivors still want to nerf the killers that have power they can't ignore.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
@Utna said:
An answer isn't true or false based on its complexity, nor it should make it more believable. Think of it that way: some churches claims that the human species where never part of the Darwin's theory of evolution ... according to their dogma they where created just as we are now. This is by far a simplier explanation of our origins than Darwin's one ... but despite sciences complexity, science is more likely to be true.
This is really getting off topic here, but I would argue that Evolution is a simpler explanation than we were just "magically" made by a god. Just like a multiplayer game having multiplayer support seems more likely and simple than "the devs caved to survivors and made SWF and then later lied that they intended to have SWF from the start to silence the killers who've been victimized by SWF teams".
Once again, you didn't quote our conversation right. There were more to read. Readers, please go check our earlier posts on the 4th page of this topic.
I guess you misunderstand the meaning of the word "Magic". Something is considered "Magic" or "supernatural", when it falls out of the limits of our knowledge and logic paterns. For example, when a rabbit comes out of a hat, a child might think it is magic, because he lacks the knowledge of how such an amazing thing could happen just in front of him. The word "Magic" have siblings we call sometimes "Luck", "Fate", and "Divine will". In each case the purpose of these words (Magic, Luck fates, ..., etc.) is to use concepts we do not fully understand in a way that our mind is capable to handle ... in a word: it turns our ignorance into something simple and concrete. Emphasise on the word SIMPLE here.
So here it is: there is nothing more SIMPLE than a magical explanation, because "Magic" is born from ignorance. As an example: I did read the book of Genesis in one hour tops, but becoming a real astrophysicist takes years at the university. Please go check Einsten's theory of relativity. OBVIOUSLY science as grown more complex than any myths in the matter of physics.
Back to the DBD topic. We both lack the knowledge about whether or not the devs are lying. But there is a logic pattern which can explain why they're might be lying (@ZombieGenesis explained it thoroughly earlier). Believing that Dev's claim is true because ... well, it come from them ... isn't a logic patern:
THIS is nothing more than SUPERSTITION (or "MAGIC" if you want to call it that way). -
@Dreamnomad said:
@Utna said:
@Dreamnomad said:
@Utna said:
@ZombieGenesis said:
Just because the devs say it in a stream doesn't mean it's the truth.19:9 Stephan Horvath: " This is all true so far."
Louis McLean :" I mean, I'm not planning on telling lies at any point here. I mean I might make some mistakes." At this point we can notice the amusement on Stephan's face. We could almost grasp his thinking: "Man you're so good at this, I could almost believe it !"Any good psychologist might tell that people experiencing guilt ... for telling a lie (for example), are more likely to be the ones to beg people to trust them ("This is ALL true so far").
On a more serious note, I've already explained in another thread why BHRV will never call SWF either cheating, or just a mistake. Because sometimes, it is easier to silence the victims of a bad situation, than actually solving the problem. In these cases, authorities make something become legal ; not because they think it is good, but only because they can't fight it. This is a basic Public Relations strategy, and this kind of pollitics where used way back in history.
So yes Zombie, I too think BHRV can't be trusted on that subject ... I might if it made sense, but the way SWF screw so many perks and game mechanics ... this can't be right.
That's some nice conspiracy theory thinking you have going on there. They seemed rather transparent in their answers to me. They went into a lot of detail about chasing around objects for instance. I see no reason why they would lie about SWF either.
I just gave those reasons in the same post, but I can see how it might not be clear. Please feel free to ask for something more specific for any explanation, otherwhise I'll be obliged to copy paste what I've just said.
Oh I read your post. No need to repaste it. " it is easier to silence the victims of a bad situation" I just find your argument utterly ridiculous.
@Dreamnomad You didn't even quote me right !! The right quote was:
"Because sometimes, it is easier to silence the victims of a bad situation, than actually solving the problem."
There is an important difference between "CAN do but don't want to" and "Would do but CAN'T because of ressources problems". My sentence talk about things (either in a game or in real life) that CAN'T be changed by politics (or the decisions of game designers). When things CAN'T be changed during a given situation, the authorities (or game designers) will find an explanation as why they didn't want it to happen in the first place, because its silences the victims, and makes non-victims less compassionate toward them.
@Dreamnomad said:
You are literally calling the killer the victim. Stop and think about that for a second.You realise DBD killers aren't real don't you ? I mean why would killer players not be victims of poor game design choices ? Are they supposed to suffer because they're nasty killers ? I don't get it ; please explain to me.
@Dreamnomad said:
So given a choice whether to believe your rather silly argument that it's a conspiracy theory or that they are telling the truth, I choose to believe they are telling the truth. Usually the simple answer is the correct one.An answer isn't true or false based on its complexity, nor it should make it more believable. Think of it that way: some churches claims that the human species where never part of the Darwin's theory of evolution ... according to their dogma they where created just as we are now. This is by far a simplier explanation of our origins than Darwin's one ... but despite sciences complexity, science is more likely to be true.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
@Utna said:
@ZombieGenesis said:
Just because the devs say it in a stream doesn't mean it's the truth.19:9 Stephan Horvath: " This is all true so far."
Louis McLean :" I mean, I'm not planning on telling lies at any point here. I mean I might make some mistakes." At this point we can notice the amusement on Stephan's face. We could almost grasp his thinking: "Man you're so good at this, I could almost believe it !"Any good psychologist might tell that people experiencing guilt ... for telling a lie (for example), are more likely to be the ones to beg people to trust them ("This is ALL true so far").
On a more serious note, I've already explained in another thread why BHRV will never call SWF either cheating, or just a mistake. Because sometimes, it is easier to silence the victims of a bad situation, than actually solving the problem. In these cases, authorities make something become legal ; not because they think it is good, but only because they can't fight it. This is a basic Public Relations strategy, and this kind of pollitics where used way back in history.
So yes Zombie, I too think BHRV can't be trusted on that subject ... I might if it made sense, but the way SWF screw so many perks and game mechanics ... this can't be right.
That's some nice conspiracy theory thinking you have going on there. They seemed rather transparent in their answers to me. They went into a lot of detail about chasing around objects for instance. I see no reason why they would lie about SWF either.
I just gave those reasons in the same post, but I can see how it might not be clear. Please feel free to ask for something more specific for any explanation, otherwhise I'll be obliged to copy paste what I've just said.
-
@ZombieGenesis said:
Just because the devs say it in a stream doesn't mean it's the truth.19:9 Stephan Horvath: " This is all true so far."
Louis McLean :" I mean, I'm not planning on telling lies at any point here. I mean I might make some mistakes." At this point we can notice the amusement on Stephan's face. We could almost grasp his thinking: "Man you're so good at this, I could almost believe it !"Any good psychologist might tell that people experiencing guilt ... for telling a lie (for example), are more likely to be the ones to beg people to trust them ("This is ALL true so far").
On a more serious note, I've already explained in another thread why BHRV will never call SWF either cheating, or just a mistake. Because sometimes, it is easier to silence the victims of a bad situation, than actually solving the problem. In these cases, authorities make something become legal ; not because they think it is good, but only because they can't fight it. This is a basic Public Relations strategy, and this kind of pollitics where used way back in history.
So yes Zombie, I too think BHRV can't be trusted on that subject ... I might if it made sense, but the way SWF screw so many perks and game mechanics ... this can't be right.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@Master said:
Just throws bad light on the devs as usual.
But I dont care anymore, if they will never balance voice comms, thats fine and I will live with it, you can always derank or lobbydodge and avoid most of itThey've honestly done nothing but buff killers recently I have no idea what killer mains have to complain about, you make it like you've never beaten an SWF squad before.
Killer mains playing Nurse or Billy maybe, because there are fast to travel through the map and have straight forward power who do not rely on stealth or surprise. Trapper in the other hand have their traps exposed to the whole SWF team, even when only one guy witnessed the set up animation. This was just an example, but many tactics and perks get wrecked because of SWF voice comms ... Knock out, Insidious, NOED (when someone dies during the game and snitches the killer's perk), etc.
All in all SWF and their voice communication makes the game poorer than it was intented to be, because anything secret or sneaky is shared between survivors when spotted by only one player ... so of course it's never gonna be good enough to compete with anti loop tactics. And not only the game isn't what it could be, but many interesting ideas will never make it into the game, just because it will make no sense in an evirronement driven by SWF players (ideas like shapeshifter killers, and such). At this rate, after the "anti loop" Clown, and "I'm not where I'm supposed to be" Spirit, I'm afraid the number of the new killer's power and perks ideas will run short very soon.
So yeah, I don't know if SWF was the idea all along, but I'm pretty sure this is what will kill DBD in the end.
-
@dontTouchMyGens said:
amneoss said:
Survivors should get an "overcharge" style skill check when attempting to remove the trap that if failed puts them into the dying state adding a risk to freeing yourself.I like this idea very much.
I like it too but it sounds too powerfull. Look at it that way: downing people while chasing someone else ? That's the kind of stuff that ends a game real quick. Could be fun as an ultra rare add-on though.
What about that : when trapped, a survivor can try to escape by himself. The base action would be 6/8/10/12 seconds (depending on add-ons), but there has to be a skillcheck (like overcharge). The skillcheck happens only once but at a random time (sometimes at the very begining, sometimes at the end). When the skillcheck is suceed, the survivor free himself in the injured state, but if it fails, he has to start the action again from scratch ... and of course there would be another skillcheck.
-
@Dustin : Agreed, it feels like SWF are the trapper's biggest weakness right now ... not only because they tell themselves the trapp's locations, but because they can easily assign themselves roles and strategy ("you disarm that while I'm being chased and the other guy repair the gens).
My main regret with trapper is his lack of use of his own perk "Unnerving Presence". While we hear the devs saying they're brainstorming for new stuff for the survivors to do during the game, besides just repairing gens, I believe disarming the trapper's traps should be one of those things. Why not adding skillchecks to escaping, sabotaging and disarming trapps ? Add-on like Secondary coil, whose increase the time of those actions would have some use, and combined with unnerving presence, they might lead to new interesting builds.
-
@Boss said:
I always say i don't camp, but i also always add that i will do it if i see direct profit gained from it.Had a game today where i had 1 dead before the Exit gates opened.
I managed to hook my second and decided to wait there cloaked.
They unhook her right in front of me of course, so i down her again.
As i pick her up, they try to bodyblock me right there, meaning they'll just waste time.
I slap both and hook her again, getting her in the struggle phase and i cloak nearby again.
For some reason, this injured Claudette's like: O ye, i'll unhook ya'!
I uncloak before she can though and down her.
The struggler dies before Claudette can get too far from me and she dies.I've also been in this scenario, and even if it saves desperate situations sometimes (as a killer it may grant an extra kill) it doesn't feel right. I guess survivors don't care to die ... which isn't a bad thing considering an average 2 survivor should die each trial. But the fact that altruism and being chased is globaly more rewarded than actually escaping from the gates, it creates this silly situation where players want to go toe to toe with their (should be) stronger ennemy. Because of that, killers arn't something to fear, hide, or escape from, but some kind of bloodpoint disposal machine.
-
@Marvel said:
Adding a bonus to the one who escapes first sounds nice but might discourage players from being altruistic after the gates are open.Also I'm thinking : "Why rewarding altruism so much ?" The very word definition (altruism) is about helping someone without waiting anything in return. Besides semantics, saving people from hooks and healing them is actually much more than a way to farm BP during a game. For a survivor, not letting people die, is the only way to have a decent chance to survive ... we all know how games are much easier (for killers) when someone disconnects just after being down for the first time.
All in all, acting altruistic is a reward in itself since it gives more chances to escape later ... that's why I would focus more on rewarding escape points. But I guess knew players should learn how and why they need to help their teamates ... so the sollution might be to have different blood point rewards depending on the player's rank.
- For begginers : not emphasing much on survival (because learning to die/loose sometimes might take a little while) and focus on blood points earnd from team play.
- For veterans : let's have a real brutal horror movie exeperience, where people fend for themselves (in theory) and even sandbag when they need to. Anyway, they'll know how to cooperate when necessary.
-
@Mediva said:
I have no idea why this should be changed. To secure a kill for what? So you rank up? So you get more points?
How about that guy on the hook, that you are facecamping to accomplish that? Doesnt he deserve the 5k points more then you for escaping? He actually played better then you, but still you want to screw him cause you want a kill. If you didnt accomplish that in game, Play better next time.Think of it like that : Killers kill and survivor should try to escape when the gates are open.
Can't say anything simpler ... but if you still got questions ... -
Funny you speak about that because I just had one of these game this morning. Playing huntress for a daily ritual, and just managed to hook someone before the gens where done, so I camped, because without any endgame perk, all I hoped for was that single kill.
Of course the survivors stuck around and eventually saved the guy under my grasp, but I downed one of them. And it all went crasy ... anyway, the result was 3 sacrifice and several minutes of camping ... shouldn't ever happen since I suck as a huntress, but THEY made it happen somehow.
In the after game chat, of course I've been called names and accused to be a troll because I didn't care of the new "anti camping mechanic". So I looked at my emblems. Turns out I lost only 4% of my chase emblem due to "hook proximity" and actually I had an iridecent one ... also I pipped (thanks to them).
So I guess It is ok to camp any time, as long as there are survivor dumb enough to stick around near the hook as well. Or maybe the punishment isn't as significative as some would like to believe. Anyway, I'll do it again, because this experience told me that end game camping is totally worth a shot.
-
Totally agree here. I believe the problem comes from the bloodpoint mechanics. The fact is being hit one last time by the killer give them more points than just leaving the game. Of course, it makes no sense in the setting of a chase/escape game.
If I could make these changes, I would remove completely the 2K BP bonus from the hatch escape, because it should be a last chance exit (for the last survivor) and then souldn't be rewarded more than the 5K for surviving. Instead there would be a reward bonus of 4K for the first player to escaped from the gates ... the second survivor would get +3K, and so on until the last guy would just have the "survived" 5K points.