burt0r
burt0r
About
- Username
- burt0r
- Joined
- Visits
- 11,313
- Last Active
Comments
-
@HEX_DEAD_BY_AI said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3734175#Comment_3734175
Who is your reply for?
If it were for me, so here is mine: IridescentSorry, not to sound hostile but "Iridescent" what? The grade in the lobby screen?
If yes, that has nothing to do with skill, only amount of playtime each month. Especially nowadays with depipping being gone.
-
Well the problem is that dbd does count 3 escapes as a win for the team but as a loss for the one dead survivor.
In lol or other team games you, as an individual player, can die 50 times and still if your team finishes the objective (Nexus for example) first, the whole team wins.
Iirc, the devs have stated that dbd is more like a 1v1v1v1v1. It doesn't really make sense to me but it's what the devs have in mind for the game.
In my opinion, there should be categories like "distraction" and "occupying the killer" contributing to an overall goal for survivor so player that keep the killer in chase for a long time or stay on hook against a camper get recognition and rewards with the rest of the team.
-
Nah, thanks, but I can live without true infinites, double pallets at every corner, aso and things like 5 omega blink nurse with instant Mori.
-
Originally it was BBQ because it was my favorite perk due to the extra BP and mini game of getting on hook each.
Now it's Lightborn because I once made a joke by saying "all our Lord and Savior Lightborn 😎", ran with and now I am it's apostle in this forum.
PRAISE BE THE SHADES.
(Also I was a filthy casual killer and not having to worry about beamers was so relaxing.)
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3728372#Comment_3728372
Want a penalty to players who are not able to play the game by being slugged because they decided to tab out.
I definitely do not want to meet you irl.
Well, being slugged isn't "unable to play the game" it's a (boring) part of the game.
And yes, I find it fair if one side can't do it neither can the other.
But hey if you think that this is enough to insinuate something about me, my personality or character, then I guess it's good we will never meet.
Edit: Btw I am also in favor of removing early exit by hook. Either both get a penalty free exit or none.
-
Seems like the afk penalty is universal.
Sounds fair to me when I as the killer also can't no longer go afk against a bully squad I am not prepared/equipped for to deal with as a casual, be it perks, killer or basic game experience.
Bleed out is at least a fixed time (except for the real rare toxic juggler). Killer that are outclassed are at the mercy of bully squads and have to endure until the squad loses interest and finally finishes the game, speaking from experience.
-
Switch targets until you find the weakest link. Get them on the hook and from that point onward let their altruism do the work.
4 people swf are notoriously altruistic and start making mistakes when one of them is in danger.
Of course they can coordinate much better than other group compositions but it's the only thing you can do in the moment.
And in case of a bully squad, stop giving them attention. Half-heartedly chase them, take your time breaking pallets or walls, do hit and run tactics, don't fully commit to a chase into for example head on ambushes, experiment/practice with your killers power and so on.
Don't hard engage them and they will lose interest.
-
Well, other have already stated that this event does one thing exceptionally well.
Making a showcase of the biggest flaws on each side.
-
@Agaki said:
I cannot play trapper who I main when there is literally survivors telling other survivors where my trap is so what's the point lmao and using the exploit that lets them pass traps that haven't been dismantled which bhvr isn't patching so yeah trapper is disabled against swf. Looking for a killer that destroys SWFs.
Non, without a good amount of practice.
-
@WolfyWood said:
I also would add that League of Legends, another PVP game has implemented forced anon-mode in its competitive queues and has had lobby dodging penalties for awhile.
A vastly different game, but the problem of lobby shopping was the same there too, and the changes were successful in severely impeding the ability to lobby shop while not overcorrecting people who had legitimate reasons to leave a lobby.
There is no reason why DBD can't or shouldn't do the same.
Ah, I don't know about the anon mode since I haven't played for a year but the leaver penalty in lobby wasn't for lobby shopping per se but because people would rage quit when their intended champion was picked by the opponent or banned.
You could call this lobby shopping but I would call it simple rage quitting.
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3725731#Comment_3725731
I've already conceded that lobby shopping is not as directly damaging as going next on the first page.
My point still remains that both of these activities stem from the same sense of entitlement to a favorable match, and to me, having a problem with one but not the other comes across as biased to me.
Personally I don't think either should be changed, but if they are both should be removed together because no one should be able to cherry pick which games they play whether it be in or before a game.
Lobby dodging would of course have a lesser penalty because it's not as far into the commitment but nothing good comes from killers being able to look at people's profiles and outfits and pick and choose accordingly. I've also noticed survivors will do the same too.
Well, you are correct that both stem from a sense of entitlement to some degree but I would also say that a specific killer character with or without 4 gen perks doesn't mean they will play toxic and therefore not a valid reason to exit early.
(Even I, during my experiment phase, had people exiting on hook against me for one of the dumb reasons mentioned in this thread.
But in my eyes, a survivor squad with matching skins, names or group wide last second item switches are a dead giveaway for a team that's not out to play a normal match but to "interact" aka deny the killer at any given opportunity, guarantee a miserable match for the average casual killer.
I personally have never dodged lobbies or rage quit (except for one time when a swf abused one of the old fat shaming spots aka exploit) but I did use the one minute waiting time, since one survivor always not ready up till last second, to check their profiles and played the match either way.
However I am guilty of not engaging with survivor that last second switch or are overly "interaction hungry"/annoying during the match.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3725624#Comment_3725624
The results being a killer dodging until they get a lobby where they will slaughter the survivors and a killer that gets slaughtered by survivors that were dodged a lot.
Survivors lobby dodging is moot because they cannot see the killer so dodging to cherry-pick teammates is way less efficient and thus most likely a lot less common then killers lobby dodging to get easier matches.
Shifting it from what exactly? My argument has remained consistent.
Aside from the difference that one happens in game and the other outside of the match:
The results being a killer dodging until they get a lobby where they will slaughter the survivors and a killer that gets slaughtered by survivors that were dodged a lot.
This is a not guaranteed possibility but could also lead to a semi even match depending on how much backfill craps the bed.
Survivor ditching at first hook on the other hand is a guaranteed certainty that the rest of the match will be miserable.
-
@Groglin5000 said:
I am just wondering this because anytime anyone suggests anything being added to the game that allows the survivors to kill the killer or even just fight back (other than flashlights or pallets.) When asked, DBD players usually say "no because being able to kill the killer makes the killer less scary" or "no because that is unrealistic and the survivors can't fight back against killers," but like, in every horror movie ever, the survivors eventually fight back and confront the killer. That doesn't make the killer less scary, and it isn't even unrealistic. Plus, the Friday the 13th game has an option to fight back against and kill Jason, but that doesn't make him any less scary and he's still pretty unstoppable. Plus, being able to kill the killer would add variety into the game. Like, what if you were able to unlock a weapon during endgame, the same way a Hatch works, but it is a special weapon that you can confront the killer with, and once you take down the killer, you can sacrifice him to the Entity or something like that. Idk but either way, why are DBD players so against putting in a way to kill the killer? After all, getting revenge on the killer for killing your friends is the best part of any horror movie or the Friday the 13th game.
Because it is an asymmetrical pvp game?
And non of the other asymmetrical games that had this concept of survivor being able to fight back survived?
In today's gaming society it is easier than ever to find the most optimal strategy, due to information exchange on social media and in many of these games the "numbers role" found ways to completely incapacitate the "power role".
-
@alaenyia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3724123#Comment_3724123
Only kills via hook or mori count for MMR. EGC and bleed out only count for grade. So if kills are important to you slugging makes no sense as far as moving up the MMR system.
Did @Xernoton ever mention MMR in this discussion?
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3722388#Comment_3722388
Neither side "owes" anything to the other as long as they're all following the rules. Slugging for the 4k is not against the rules. It's not fun, I get that but honestly, why wouldn't a killer simply slug and all but guarantee the 4k? The killer does not need to care about your fun, just as you don't need to care about their fun. Which means that both sides can play in whatever way they want. Securing a 4k means nothing more than eliminating an unnecessary risk for extra BP and better pips.
It's completely natural for players to aim for the best possible outcome. There is nothing petty about that. It's the equivalent of survivors not taking 3 escapes but trying to get the last survivor out. Why wouldn't they do that? They already won, so it's not absolutely necessary but 4 > 3. Or keeping the exit at 99%. It's not necessary but they do it to avoid Blood Warden, which is a potential risk. They could just open the gate and take a chance but there is no reason for it because it's easily avoided.
The killer is not obligated to sympathise with you. If they do, then that's great but really they have no reason to. At the end of the day, they play the game to have fun and for some people the 4k is an important part of that. Survivors don't stop to think about how the killer might feel either. Because it's not their priority.
Also, why does the killer have to give the survivor a free escape, if they just wait near an exit gate? Both sides find ways to optimise their gameplay and it's rarely fun to play against but as long as it is allowed there is no point in shaming them. They don't do anything wrong as far as the rules are concerned and the rules are the only metric that decides whether or not something in a game is "wrong".
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3724001#Comment_3724001
Ahhh, so you're one of those fortune tellers, huh? I always find it funny when someone else tells me things about myself that even I didn't know yet.
Just playing the game as intended and racing the last survivor to hatch (which is way skewed in the killer's favor) is not "giving them a free escape" […]
I recommend reading the full sentence. It is a free escape on many maps when you close the hatch and that survivor waits at an exit gate, which has become increasingly common. How do I know that? It might have something to do with me not slugging for the 4k. Maybe I should though. After all, kills are all that matters. The game doesn't give a damn how I got those kills, so why should I?
This has nothing to do with bm. It's a way to play the game. I don't like when survivors use a map offering to send themselves to GoJ either. That doesn't make it bm. Because they don't do it to ruin my experience but because they want better results. Just as a killer that slugs for the 4k. It's in the game, it's not a punishable offense and there is nothing that stops a killer from doing it.
I see nothing in these two posts?
But good job moving the goal post, probably because you don't want to/can't address halve of their points.
For example about the fact that survivor trying their hardest for a 4 people escape instead of taking the 3e "because they already won" is acceptable but when it's the killer wanting a complete victory (or complete archives or achievements) and doing everything to maximize their chance is an offense to people like you.
(And before you also come at me that I slug for the 4k, you are free to check my comment history where I made it clear that, for the last up to 2 years I played this game, I made it point of an experiment to not tunnel,camp or slug to see how appreciative survivor were in comparison to all the complaints on the forum.)
-
Okay , I don't play this game anymore and therefore don't care in this specific case but does every game has to be made into a clown fest like Fortnite with a whole bunch of joke skins nowadays?
And yes I know Elefant Bunny legion were around for years and I didn't like them either but at least they still looked grimy.
I also didn't appreciate the first unicorn skin in R6S.
It's not about others wanting to look whatever, it's about me having to look at it and it breaking and left form of immersion in most games.
I would love some option that let me turn of specific skins on my client side in many games. Just so it looks like baseline instead of goofy or whatever for me.
-
This is another good reason to show premade/swf status after the match. So neither the killer can make excuses in case of solos nor survivor lying and gaslighting the killer.
-
@Nazzzak said:
Did you call them out on stream? I would have personally
What would that help?
Their viewers are most probably on the side of the streamer or expect that kind of behaviour already (or they either would've stopped watching such a jerk or got banned for speaking up).
In the end you would get banned from chat and probably made more fun of by the streamer and their premade group in their voice chat.
-
Only until this method would be posted on social media (which would INEVITABLY happens in today's society) and due to everyone trying it, it would stop working because the OFF option would gain a player base again 😂
-
Simply make the cross play off people filler for coincidental platform "pure" lobbies.
The cross play off people would still have to wait way longer than with ON but at least have a chance at finding some matches.
Not that I really care about this issue but it's not as impossible as it seems.
Not lucrative and therefore not to be expected? Undoubtedly.
Impossible? No.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3718542#Comment_3718542
yeah.. it would be so much nicer if they forced people that have crossplay turned on into lobbies without crossplay!!!111
???
I don't understand your logic here.
You are looking at this from the perspective of a cross play ON person, right?
They wouldn't have any demerit from this because they would still be matched with the other cross play ON people but ALSO with the few cross play off people from their platform?
It would only benefit the cross play off people by giving them a chance to play with people from their own platform.
Of course matchmaking would've to still prioritize filling a lobby however way before trying to force a platform exclusive lobby but those aren't impossible in general.
-
@ArkInk said:
I'm definitely agreeing with the secondary objective, maybe an item of sorts that buffs whatever team holds it and there's something each side can do to steal it back. That would maybe slow matches a bit and give players more chances to interact before the trial is decided.
An item that ONE OF FOUR survivor can steal from the SINGLE killer? Sounds balanced 😂
-
@Xcell78 said:
I've been playing this game for the better part of 5 years now and I main Survivor for the most part. I literally just had 4 matches in a row where the first survivor that was hooked just "Gave Up" and threw the match for me and the other 3 survivors. In one of the matches after the first survivor gave up the rest of us just waited in a circle for the killer to come and end this miserable experience. This is the current state of the game these days. Which int he end is just not fun for all involved. I much rather deal with a bubba face camp from the old days than deal with this. And God forbid if you throw in the true "DC" you spend more time finding a match than actually playing in one to completion. Since the De-Pip was removed, that accelerated the instances of "Giving Up". I mean why not right? there really isn't any serious consequences for doing so. A little slap on the wrist maybe a 5 min ban no problem, I need to pee anyway. Come back do it again. The game in my opinion was better off back in the day in allot of ways vs what we have today. Even as toxic of an environment that was, at least people stayed in the dang match. Maybe Behavior should create a true Competitive mode for those of us that don't mind having competition and leave this current version for the ones that can't take the heat and let them casually disconnect. I really don't know what to say about this muck at the moment other than I hope Behavior can come up with a fair solution to this or I'm afraid this will have diminishing returns on the game and community.
More like dead by block/wall of text 😜
(Just as an advice unformatted text without paragraphs is hard to read.)
-
I would've loved to see all these DC endorsers commenting here back during the DS/UB/DH Meta that went for years and with an option for killer to give up.
The complaints would've been enormous if killer back then could've given up the same way survivor do nowadays. 😂
@bleep275 said:
there is absolutely nothing you can do to make a survivor not quit. Remove giving up on hook? They’ll just go afk or purposely chase you down and spam noises till you kill them. Hell they could just alt f4 and be done with it if that mechanic is added.
And frankly I’m fine with it. I give up. I just had 5 clowns in a row all running almost the same build. I was tired of it. Hell yesterday most of my matches the people who quit were getting camped. They shouldn’t be forced to stay in a game they won’t be able to play because of camping and tunneling.
The community is too toxic to do anything about it.
And frankly I’m fine with it. I give up. I just had 5 clowns in a row all running almost the same build. I was tired of it.
Especially when reading a comment like this as an argument for it. 🤣
-
When have both sides NOT complained about each other?
Sometimes the one side is louder, then the other.
@tippy2k2 said:
I am never going to generalize and say "All Killers are X" (or vice versa for Survivors).
HOWEVER
I will say that I have found more and more players who just tunnel and camp as killers. Which is their right as a player but it just kills the experience of playing the game and is at least part of the reason why my playing of this game has dropped considerably.
As I stated, I won't paint all killers with that broad brush but plenty of players do not hold that viewpoint and therefore will dump on all killers. I imagine a lot of the current "killers suck" discussion is coming from that place of frustration.
I will say that I have found more and more players who just tunnel and camp as killers.
Well even when I haven't played this game in years, I can't blame them. Neither the game nor the community really give any incentive.
The devs can't figure out how to prohibit or hard prevent those play styles without making proper compensations and therefore are too afraid to do anything drastic.
And from my experiment years ago I have to say, survivor have never really done anything themselves to encourage the friendly/fair/"normal"/chase-oriented/whatever you wanna call it play style.
It's 90% either silence, trash talk of varying degree or the usual GG after Ra crushing defeat for the killer. Also a bunch of "kicking when already on the ground" for the killer when it became obvious that the survivor were ahead or simply better.
The ONLY thing that keeps killer from tunneling and camping is their own consciousness and the fact that it is objectively really boring to stay around and camp or drive someone single mindedly out of a match (except when provoked).
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3714220#Comment_3714220
Whats wrong with saying gg?
Its better to have a good sport than to have bad ones. DBD has enough horrible people playing already. Are we really starting to lash out at people who are nice now?
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3714444#Comment_3714444
But what if the game was still ok?
What if the game was still fun for them? The survivors continued to play well, the killer played well and despite it being a loss for the survivors it can be a fun game.
Don't get me wrong there are people that say gg to mock others like many sore winners do in this game. I don't like these people, but how should I know their true intentions.
When I get stomped by survivors that bring stuff way stronger than what I have and they say gg in end game, despite me getting one hook. Guess what I say. Gg. And I leave it at that.
I take good sports over bad sports every day. They said gg. They didn't rub it in by saying "gg ez" or "bot killer/survivors".
They ended the game with a gg to leave it at that.
When Initiated by the loser, nothing wrong with that.
But if it comes from the winner first or only, it simply is thoughtless and one-sided. You wouldn't go to a crushed loser in competitive sports when they are down after a match, as the winner and tell them "better luck next time".
And I'm not talking about close matches but one sided stomps ending at 4+ gens left or with only 1-2 hooks.
-
@Archael said:
This can feel sarcastic and provoking if game went miserable. But not every killer knows and need to know if game went miserable for survs.
It's better to learn that GG is always friendly gesture this way one can achieve two goals:
1. Be not triggered when this shows up.
2. Takes satisfaction away from people that use it sarcastically.
"Always friendly"?
The right next comment immediately showing that it's just an empty, thoughtless gesture at this point.
@BlightedDolphin said:
At this point it’s just a habit for me. At the end of every game I just say gg without even thinking.
I wouldn’t take it personally, they might just be saying it instinctively.
If it's simply thrown out without any consideration for the other party then I would call it self satisfactory and nothing more.
A stretched and exaggerated metaphor would be greeting everybody with "it's such a nice, sunny day, isn't it?" at a wake or funeral.
@radiantHero23 said:
I say gg every game. It has just become a habit. Better than people spamming slurs is it not?
Swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other, hm?
(I know I will catch flag for this but I posted my opinion on this before and am not going to change it.)
-
Well back in the day you could start a match as for example spirit, have no perks at all and if the enemy team had one OoO and were an swf, they would DC immediately.
(Most probably DC penalties weren't a thing at the time or off but the mentality is the same.)
But when you say they dced after 2 minutes, in combination with your perks, I would say it wasn't only your choice of killer but also your play style and at that point I have to ask, what did you expect, choosing the most hated things INTENTIONALLY?
That makes your moral standpoint as low as survivor running intentionally into the killer and then crying "tunneler".
-
@jamally093 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712634#Comment_3712634
All the gens were done but I'm mainly asking since he got two kills so its that sorta I feel like there's no reason they should be near the hook since basically two kills means well a tie if you think about it two escapes(if they did since I didn't watch the whole thing) and two kills.
Why do those two kills matter?
Survivor don't suddenly have to exit with open gates when two survivor still hang on hook?
Nothing changes in your example just because the definition of a tie has been met?
And to your question about "is this camping?", yes, camping is camping. It just becomes the most rational play when no other realistic worthwhile goal remains.
-
As if any survivor would care about their taunting being earned.
It's simply showing virtual balls in any moment they don't have to fear any in game consequences.
After dropping a pallet against any killer that can't bypass it, in the exit gates, after jumping a window or similar situation out of the reach of the killers influence.
You won't see any of that against a good slinger or a killer with active blood warden because suddenly the safety is gone.
Edit: Before anyone comes at me with "but killer do it too", I don't care, I have never done this stuff, so I don't feel addressed by those things and not part of the generalization. But a truckload of the stuff complained about in this thread, unprovoked.
-
You are playing DbD, so yes you agreed to play with premade groups.
Oh if this argument would fly with survivor that say"I won't play against killer x or y and either DC or hook exit".
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3711386#Comment_3711386
”Tunneling accepted by who?” The people that tunnel regardless if it is “deserved “ or not.
“Offensive DS being complained about who?” The people that are being hit with a DS when they weren’t tunneling regardless if it is “deserved” or not.
Both being “punished” regardless if they “deserved” it or not.
Killers used to be the only role that could “punish” someone regardless if it was “deserved” or not. Now survivors can also “punish” someone regardless if it was “deserved” or not.
If someone used DS offensively it is not tunneling. If you agree that it isn’t toxic to use it this way then we’re on the same page.I’m not sure how to break it down any more than that.
Okay, I see that my argument about "hypocrisy/double standard" being false doesn't get through to you since you took most of my last comment the wrong way.
I know who complains about what. The point was that those aren't the same people and therefore there is no hypocrisy like you claim.
But I tried to make that point clear multiple times and am done with this discussion. BB
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710897#Comment_3710897
So, there's alot to talk about here. I'm not sure if you're looking for a genuine discussion, as you seem to be making things a bit personal, and I'm not trying to argue or insult others if they don't play the role I play because frankly I feel it's rude and pointless to do so.
But when it comes to a few points in your comment, I will try to explain my perspective . For example, your comment on, "The people that complain about ds used offensively are NOT the same that accept tunneling" So I believe you're saying that the people that get affected by DS offensively were not tunneling, which yes, I understand that. I also understand that it wouldn't be "offensive" if it were "defensive". If thats the point you believe I was trying to make in my post, I'm sorry it's come across that way as It is not my intention. I am aware that not everyone likes tunneling, and that not every killer tunnels, but it still happens so much to the point where the Devs felt comfortable enough to bring DS into the game years ago and to recently buff DS to bring it back.
So in my opinion, disregarding something that happens simply because not everyone does it, is wrong. If it happens often enough that an entire perk was created to deterr it, and then to buff it, then it happens enough to matter. I'm glad some don't play that way, I don't play that way either, but some do, and to ignore that is disingenious. This is why I don't believe it's a "gross and wrong generalization". The point of my post is that many people who are upset about DS being using in this way feel it is punishing someone that doesn't deserve it- which I understand, and agree that it isn't fun, but tunneling in itself feels like a punishment to someone that didn't deserve it either, but it is accepted as a valid playstyle, and that's why it feel hypocritical. I understand if you personally don't accept it as a valid playstyle, but enough do.
Your opinion stating, "Survivor can either have their cake of functional anti tunneling tools/perks or can justifiably complain about unfun strategies used against them, not both" I'm confused on your position. Are you saying that if they have access to anti-tunneling tools they can't complain about tunneling? Or are you saying that if they have unfun strats they can't complain about unfun strats? I'm unsure which you might've meant in your post, but I don't think that people aren't allowed to be annoyed about something regardless if they have a coutner to it or not. This goes for both sides as well, as there are unfun strats, perks, items, add-ons and various other things that can be annoying or frustrating for both sides to deal with, even if a counter exists. I believe most everything in the game has some kind of counter, but that doesn't mean you will always have access to it the moment you need it, so I don't understand why you feel like it's not allowed to be..upset about something you don't like? If your point in this is saying, "survivors can't be upset about tunneling because they have this DS they can use offensively now," then I would agree that if a person goes out of their way to use it offensively and then gets hooked because of it, then yes, I would agree they shouldn't say they were tunneled, because they weren't. But to say that survivors are not allowed to complain about tunneling at all because this DS exists, I don't agree with, as the only reason DS was created was in an attempt to counter tunneling in the first place.
Anyways, hope you have good games, if my post came across as disrespectful or invalidating know that is was not my intention, and that I'm simply offering up an opinon and the reasons why I have that opinion and that it's okay if we don't agree. GLIYN
The point of my post is that many people who are upset about DS being using in this way feel it is punishing someone that doesn't deserve it- which I understand, and agree that it isn't fun, but tunneling in itself feels like a punishment to someone that didn't deserve it either, but it is accepted as a valid playstyle, and that's why it feel hypocritical. I understand if you personally don't accept it as a valid playstyle, but enough do.
Here is the same generalization again, tunneling accepted by who? Offensive DS being complained by who?
The people that complain about DS used offensively DONT TUNNEL themselves, don't condone it and aren't the ones accepted tunneling as valid. Therefore there is no hypocrisy or double standards.
Are you saying that if they have access to anti-tunneling tools they can't complain about tunneling? Or are you saying that if they have unfun strats they can't complain about unfun strats?
Neither. I am saying that if survivor get a counter against a certain play style they don't like but then force that same play style because they are now protected against it, have no right to complain if they themselves FORCE it, which is the whole point of "using DS offensively".
so I don't understand why you feel like it's not allowed to be..upset about something you don't like?
When the opponent doesn't use that unfun thing or strategy but the other party suddenly forces it because they know they have a guaranteed counter, then they shouldn't complain. Being upset about tunneling in general is totally fine.
If your point in this is saying, "survivors can't be upset about tunneling because they have this DS they can use offensively now," then I would agree that if a person goes out of their way to use it offensively and then gets hooked because of it, then yes, I would agree they shouldn't say they were tunneled, because they weren't
And here you suddenly get my point, at least partially. Using DS offensively is ONLY possible in this scenario by definition.
If the killer tunnels from the beginning, DS CANT be used offensively because it has to be used defensively. And if the killer doesn't tunnel, it can't be used defensively, only offensively by throwing yourself in front of the killer and bodyblocking.
Those two cases are mutually exclusive and depend on the play style of the killer, which leads me back to the problem with generalization and the mentioned hypocrisy.
An analogy would be, if you (general, not personal you) drive on the highway with a cop car behind you. They simply let you go on your way but you decide to break check them. They then pull you over into a traffic stop and afterwards you cry about unfair treatment and profiling or something. You provoked the situation and therefore have only yourself to blame.
That's what I meant by "using DS offensively isn't toxic but the behaviour that often follows afterwards is" as an answer to your question in the title.
(Sorry, if I address several points multiple times but a m tired and too lazy to rewrite everything into one congruent text. 😴)
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3710570#Comment_3710570
I think the last sentence really sums it up well and I agree with it. I'm not here to say that using DS offensively like this is fun. Many haved explained situations that it could be very frustrating to deal with. But the entire point of DS exsisting was to counter something that others also found very unfun and frustrating. Most people don't have an issue agreeing that DS is annoying and feels like a "punishment" to someone who didn't "deserve it", but some of the same people won't admit that a survivor being tunneled feels like a "punishment" and claim it doesn't matter if they "deserved" it or not because tunneling is accepted as a valid strategy.
It's hard for me to justify or sympathize almost because the reasons why using DS offensively is "bad" and why tunneling is "bad" are the same argument, but one is accepted and the other is not.
Okay, 3 pages of comments and in my eyes your premise is still flawed.
It's hard for me to justify or sympathize almost because the reasons why using DS offensively is "bad" and why tunneling is "bad" are the same argument, but one is accepted and the other is not.
This a gross and wrong generalization.
The people that complain about ds used offensively are NOT the same that accept tunneling.
On the contrary, ds can only be used offensively against people that have agreed to the notion of tunneling as bad, therefore go out of their way to not do it, then get forced by the survivor and to top it of get still called tunneler and complained about.
The people that don't care about the tunneling complains and have "accepted it as a valid strategy" will do it regardless and therefore ds can only be used DEFENSIVELY against them.
Those two groups might not be clear cut and a part of the complains might be from notorious tunnelers but in general they aren't the same.
And aggressively used DS isn't toxic, the unfair treatment afterwards is.
Survivor can either have their cake of functional anti tunneling tools/perks or can justifiably complain about unfun strategies used against them, not both.
Same with a killer that is intend on tunneling and then complains about backlash.
Either tunnel and accept complaints/countermeasure being implemented or play hard mode/friendly and survivor have nothing to complain about.
Sadly the latter doesn't keep survivor from complaining anyway, when the match didn't go their way, which is also a frequent double standard on that side.
-
OH NO.....anyway...
-
I have my personal favorites:
Iron maiden - for faster locker opening (most of the time I forget the other effect 😅)
Bamboozle - faster vaults (the window block is also nice)
Brutal strength - faster breaking of pallets and doors/kicking gens
Lightborn/franklins - the first is a staple for me.the latter if I am in a bad mood
Until it got killed for me, BBQ, since mainly played for BP
So in general mostly perks that passively enhance base interaction, nothing else. A kind of quality of life thing for me that doesn't really hamper the survivor, except franklins 😈
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3708568#Comment_3708568
This is untrue. Neither get BP in case they disconnect. For survivors however, there is a bot that replaces them and the game still tracks the bot's BP. That's why it looks as if they got their BP.
I recently had a match end because of server issues and the game displayed me as the only survivor that had earned no BP despite the dc icon on every player.
No, that's not what I meant. I know that quitter don't keep their BP no matter the side. (I have played this game since release until 3 years ago 😜)
I meant when the killer DC and the survivor get booted from the match they keep their BP.
-
So you would be fine with a noticable portion of all games ending prematurely because the killer didn't like something? Bots don't help on this side and killer bots aren't implemented in public matches.
-
@alienbb said:
I thought that if you dc as killer, you dont get ANY bp. At least I havent whenever I had dc'd as killer. I literally get 0 bp. Yall get your bp's after you dc??? Must be nice lol 🤪
I don't know if this is sarcasm but in case of no, survivor still get BP, not the killer. Therefore the specific 7k for an escape mentioned in the post.
-
@Royval said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707185#Comment_3707185
there was no latency problem. This simply should not hit me. Look at it frame by frame he hit me miles away.
Okay, I watched it frame by frame on my PC.
Between you hitting the ground and the killer injuring you are only 3-4 frames.
BUT that's when the blood splatter comes out of the survivors back. The animation hasn't played at this point and the swing only finishes 12 frames later.
This indicates to me that a hit is registered by the server at the BEGINNING of the animation not the end.
Edit: Sorry had to reedit this part because the pictures got distorted somehow after uploading them.
Edit 2: Nvm, these screenshots also get distorted but my points are at least visible here.
-
What?
If I see this correctly they hit you the EXACT moment your feet touched the ground aka you haven't made distance and are well within the killers reach?
I don't see anything strange with this hit.
Edit: Couple that with any potential latency and you might even be still mid vault for the server to register the hit.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
I don't like flashlights. I run Lightborn every match, no exceptions.
All hail to our Lord and Savior Lightborn 😎
Edit: @topic, I hate any form of excessive taunting and full on denial builds. The kind of squads that want to deny the killer at every opportunity, like blinds, body blocking, hook sabo, head-on and so on.
Part of what made me a Lightborn apostle. (Franklizns if I feel malicious)
Also part of why I quit. You want to play try hard and hardcore deny me because you know you can while I want to play casual? Play with yourself, I am going to break doors and dropped pallets.
-
Well, I don't know what you want to hear?
Going for 8hooks before any kill is and always will be the hard mode way to play this game.
You have determine for yourself if that's what you want to do and if you are having fun.
The matchmaking and MMR seemed to be random for years now, due to shortening queue times and softening matchmaking ranges.
You have to decide how you want to play. Your opponents won't be consistent and not complimenting your play style in the VAST MAJORITY of cases. You can get solo newbies, having no clue what to do, in one match and the next will be a seal team six, hellbent on cranking out those gens for a speed run match or the same team trying to hard deny you as the killer, because interaction=fun, FOR THEM.
So, stick to your morals, switch it up with better killers/meta perks/unpopular play styles/whatever or quit the game, as I did.
Survivor will complain no matter what and in general won't thank you much for pulling your punches.
So it's all up to you and no one else.
-
Remember people:
Personal stats aren't equal to average stats.
One can have a 0% escape rate so long as another has a 80% escape rate so the average comes down to 40%.
-
@goodfriday said:
@HolyDarky ofc you will say that as if killer mains dont do us vs them 95% of the time more than survivors, goodness you sure had alot of time to qoute so much different person to defend the same boring topics that where tired of seeing. Yall do not wanna run lightborn for flashbangs/flashlights too bad. You do not want to look around before picking up a down survivor that is on you. Also do you and some people do not get tired of saying this lame excuse of this vs them.
I swear people do not know when to use that term anymore. Yeah when someone speak the truth its the excuse of=us vs them or this is not relevant to the topic where you can see from my nearly 10+ likes that am speaking the facts.
Thinking likes on this forum equals facts 😂😂😂😂
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3704549#Comment_3704549
You did not understand my post. They did well because they wanted to annoy OP. And they succeeded.
Ah okay so provoking a negative reaction out of your opponent where it isn't even a little bit necessary in a match is "doing well" according to you. Understood.
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3704554#Comment_3704554
...so you discuss without having any recent play time?
Lots has changed, its one following something and actually experiencing it.
I never discuss gameplay directly.
Mostly player behaviour, about how it has been from release until the time I last played in comparison to today or how gameplay and it's changes have been.
I won't assume to know anything about how the game is nowadays.
And before you ask, then why are you on this forum? To kill time and entertainment.
-
Never? If it's 5 out of 7 days.
And otherwise I would have to lie to know exactly.
My steam says first September '22 but I know that was just to install it for a promo skin or something. So probably last time played anniversary '21.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Seems like the person achieved exactly what they wanted to achieve. They did well, you complained about it on the Forums, they won and got what they wanted.
"They did well"? 😂😂😂😂
Survivor don't have to do anything but to outstealth the other 3, can never touch a gen or heal another survivor and hatch still spawns for them.
The only thing they irrefutably did well was A) hiding from the killer and B) be lucky with the rng to get to hatch first.
Anything else is speculation.
-
Just the usual spite, be it waiting in the exit gates until the last second, sitting on hatch until an audience arrives, waiting in lobby until the last second to switch something or stealth around in a 2 vs 1 scenario.
Survivor love to waste time when it's against the killer but the second they get slugged, they cry rivers and scream "being hold hostage".
Of course those aren't necessarily the same survivors but the double standard and irony is always staggering.
-
@yanime said:
this is laughable. killer is as easy as its ever been. sorry for you, and good luck. looks like this is the cap on your skill.
Please check the dates of the last comment of threads you comment in.
Both of your posts on this forum are in threads that have been left dead for 1,5 months and the other for 10 months!
Many of this old discussions aren't fully relevant anymore due to the changes to the game in the meantime. (Not necessarily true for the 6-7 weeks old one but definitely for the 10 months.)