cheapslurpiee
cheapslurpiee
About
- Username
- cheapslurpiee
- Joined
- Visits
- 400
- Last Active
Comments
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
I don't think it has much effect, and certainly doesn't redeem the perk at all, but imo no mither should start the survivor as healthy and make them permanently broken the first time they are injured by any means.
It would eliminate part of the perk that screams "tunnel me" right as the match starts without really buffing the perk in a meaningful way.
I don't think it's inherently bad to show the broken status in general though.
I think it helps it's usability. But showing the killer they are broken as soon as they're hit that first time is literally the same thing as what you said you don't want: "tunnel me please." If I start healthy and you can't see broken status when it's my perk doing it, you can't know that its no mither, resilience, or just solo q things. There's a bit of a mind game at that point. You'd see more value in a 2 v 1 situation if you're slugged, or if someone goes for a pallet/flashlight save and lures the killer in.
-
I'm not happy if i don't run that naughty killer for 6 gens.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
I would welcome a tournament mode but altering the rules like in the niche comp scene is lame as hell. I want to play official Dead by Daylight, not a few sweaty players' alternative vision of the game.
Understandable. Im not too familiar with the comp scene but the way the game is discussed, I just figured people might think a no holds situation could be a slippery slope.
-
Interesting perspective seeing as you're slugged on the floor with 2 others on death hook. How was the killer playing in this game?
-
@LordGlint said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/KPCQP6NX8HTY/17407449274672801618010449727429.jpg
Haven't really been playing much lately with the exception some 2v8 matches over the weekend, but saw a Pig video yesterday and figured I kinda wanna play her since I usually dont. Figured I'd try getting some dash value at loops...
This morning, I log on and hop on Pig... I've played 2 games so far and BOTH have ppl trying to "go next" on the first hook of the match immediately. First guy succeeded... 2nd guy got rescued before he could do more than hit 2nd stage. This is essentially proof that ppl will do this against ANYONE for no reason except they got caught.
I'm not entirely sure why it is so surprising that people leave online matches. That exists in every online game. Rage quiting has been around for a couple decades at this point. You needed proof to realize the killer doesn't have to be Nurse for people to not want to be in a particular game?
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
I think Pennywise would be interesting, but there would need to be something very special about him/her to differentiate him/her from just another clown.
That, and Stephen King would likely have to change his mind about video games. Very unlikely.
(Also, yes I did put him/her, if you have read the book you know why.)How does he feel about video games?
-
I agree.
If for no other reason, I think the mention about slugging for the 4k is reason enough to look at the idea.
I've spoken about the infamous 2 v 1 situation a few times now. It's one of the worst gameplay outcomes I've ever seen in a game and cannot think of another that mimics sacrificing one player's agency for another's like this does.
We shouldn't incentivize making a player rot on the ground for 4+ minutes as a gameplay mechanic. On paper, it just doesn't make sense to me.
-
@joeyspeehole said:
One Perspective- I feel like when you're stuck in a match where people are cleansing totems and opening chests while someone is about to go into the second hook status, it's tempting not to struggle and just let the Entity take you.
Another =Perspective- At what point does slugging for the 4K count as using the game's mechanics to hold people hostage? Killing yourself on the hook could have value beyond just moving on to the next match.
Slugging for the 4k isn't taking the game hostage in any shape or form, if it was then it would be reportable.
See... I don't even fault people for thinking this way. I just personally think the option for you to shouldn't exist. I don't really argue the particulars of DBD. You won't find me in a convo about a singular perk being too strong... but as for slugging (for extended periods)... I cannot think of a single game I've played that mimics the sheer lack of agency for a survivor such a "strategy" creates.
I don't complain about go-next because of things like that. Dying in SnD in an FPS and having to wait until next round? Not the same. In-game timers for crafting to finish? Not quite.
I don't do that as killer. No singular match is THAT important to potentially add 4+ minutes to it for an additional kill. If you get hatch, cool, on to the next. DBD has a few rules for thee, but not for me scenarios and some core contradictory gameplay outcomes.
○ Tunneled out ruthlessly = strategy.
○ Leave early yourself = epidemic. Fun ruiner.
• "Hiding excessively" = holding game hostage.
• Letting one bleed out while you scour the map for the other = strategy.
We have to remember this is a GAME. Meaning you shouldn't be sacrificing one player's agency for another. I want killers to have fun, but not at the cost of another player needing to sit idly for 30% of the game time before dying. That's a punishment and it tilts players which ultimately leads to them playing aggressively selfish after.
-
I love the effort you put into this. I can tell you enjoyed being creative. It's cool DBD inspires you to want to create concepts like this.
I think the werewolf idea may step on Dracula's toes though, no? It's kinda like getting Pennywise into DBD, but we already have Clown.
The perks are very interesting. I think you did a great job with them. Brawl with the beast is my favorite. On first thought, im thinking 5 tokens may be ideal but i get the idea of a clean 3 sec max. The map idea is great as well. A mix of the 2 styles: woods and village would be a neat map idea.
Great job!
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
Im kind of new*, can you explain what you mean? Should I keep investing time in the game in your opinion?
Yes you should investing time into the game as long as you're enjoying yourself. If not, of course you are not obligated to play. There's a running meme in the community from a BHVR head where he encourages you to play something else if you're not happy with it.
With that being said, it's just a thing where you play a couple games that are fairly chill and casual with killer/survivor match ups you don't mind, then after a little success the game throws you some people who you could swear are playing for 20k.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
I think a lot of players, on both sides, have complaints about balancing changes, because they dont realize they have been MMR boosted and facing opponents they shouldnt have been able to face in the first place. I'm taking killer specifically for this post due to current changes affecting them the most, but its also true for survivors when medkits were being changed, or when MFT got changed (people saying they now needed to genrush to compete with the killers they were facing, like, duh, you boosted yourself and now you have to deal with the consequences of that).
Think about it, for killers claiming that its impossible to win without slugging, in the past 4 years the following things happened:
Gens have been increased by 10 seconds.
Mapsizes have been reduced.
Basekit generator kicking applies 5% damage and the gen keeps regressing untill the survivor fixed the 5%.
Chase related interactions are 10% shorter for killers, and survivors received a 10% nerf in boost duration.
DS has been nerfed to a point its rarely being used.
Killers in general have been upped in strength.
Less pallets on average.
Less windows on average.
More hooks per square meter of map so less time carrying survivors to hooks.
And sure, BT has been made basekit, sure, hook timers have been increased by 10 seconds. But how often does basekit BT actually trigger unless you tunnel? How often do survivors stay on hook for longer than 60 seconds?
All in all, the game should have been easier for killers in general to the point where they didnt need to rely on slugging, tunnelling and 4 gen regression perks. But yet people did. And now they face survivors who are basically out of their league to the point that they have to keep relying on the things that boosted them to those brackets in the first place.
And while I think there are some valid points, I am also 100% convinced that the vast majority of players have accidentally MMR boosted themselves and now simply have to deal with the consequences untill their MMR lowers to more realistic numbers.
The game has objectively been getting easier for killers, yet you claim its harder than ever. Then maybe the conclusion should be that you're facing opponents that are out of your league.(people saying they now needed to genrush to compete with the killers they were facing, like, duh, you boosted yourself and now you have to deal with the consequences of that).
How do survivors boost MMR? Like doing SWF and winning when they should've been solo and losing more often? I'm not sure what you mean.
Chase related interactions are 10% shorter for killers, and survivors received a 10% nerf in boost duration.
What do you mean by a nerf in boost reduction? Like when you get hit, the distance you get to gain spacing? I don't read patch notes.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/439238/band-aid-fixes-for-the-win
QOL issues like hit detection, hit boxes of players and objects, map/tile RNG, server additions or upgrades, and the overall gameplay loop and it's incentives.Hit detection is a much trickier thing than what the planned changes and times they've played around with it in the past people haven't been thrilled.
Maps are tough because everyone wants to change them, but people want to go in different directions.
Server additions is a totally different thing. They could do that relatively quickly if they thought it was worth the investment.
The gameplay loop has kept people pretty happy for almost a decade now.
It doesn't make the time spent marinating on the floor any less painful.It partially does. Why does losing via slugging feel so bad? Because it takes so long without any interactive elements.
They still need to change knockout, but a conditional surrender state is a relatively easy addition that I wish they had done a lot earlier.
It would quicker see them leave the game entirely.A possibility, one I worry about as well, and we'll need to see the exact mechanics. If it does prevent people from going next so frequently I suspect the players that will be lost will be more than made up for by player gains from those who like it more.
So we have determined the survivors cannot win by your own words, so essentially the fix is to say hurry up and lose.Kind of, yes. The 2v1 is a conundrum for BHVR. Creating a scenario where both survivors could realistically escape would undermine the killer's success, , without it the survivors have no reason not to hide for hatch beyond a rule telling them they can't.
I'd be fine with extending the surrender state to 2v1 because, as you say, if its unwinnable than I wonder why the trial is still going on. That said, matches that just 'end' without an actual finish tend to leave a bad impression for most players.
Consider a gen speed up scale to keep games competitive as more people die.2v8 was designed around this and still needs some tinkering, it would be much harder for 1v4. Too strong and it encourages survivors to just leave the survivor on hook to die.
Thank you for your comment! I actually agree with not of what you've said. To your point about it having a gameplay loop that's made people happy for years... I completely understand. I just think they should always be looking to innovate (strategically). TCM has the right idea IMO in allowing people to team up when necessary but you can escape on your own as well. I think DBD just falls in a sweet enough spot for people where the alternatives (like VHS, TCM, etc.) just don't have novelty, name pulls, or killer play like DBD manages to fully convert them long term. There are many exposed wires, even today, in DBDs gameplay loop 9 years later.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Im so glad OP used paragraphs.
ME TOO! Holy wall of text! That guy needs to learn how to be concise. He's pretty chill and kinda handsome though so I'll let it slide just this time.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
Yeah. Hurry up and lose. Or win. You never know until you try. You're not entitled to 5-10 minutes of hiding. People got things to do. Once it hits 2 remaining survivors, some anti-hiding thing should kick in after 5 or 10 minutes.
Yeah, but as I said, they themselves have deemed the match unwinnable. Meaning there is no "or win" in their thinking. Killers do victory laps after tunneling 2 survivors out. That shouldn't be the case. There are perks for snuffing survivors out. Commonly it seems quite the opposite to your statement about killers having things to do... they dont mind adding an additional 4+ minutes to the game for another kill. If a survivor has things to do, then go run head first into the killer or do the objective. My fix is to give a gen speed multiplier. If there's 3 gens left and 2 survivors, what's wrong with a speed increase until 1 gen or something. Just a thought.
-
Did you miss the whole other half of the image where it said anti-tunnelling, anti-camping and anti-slugging?
No, which is why I'm talking about phase 1... we don't know what phase 2 will be...
I don't know where you're getting the implication that BHVR are saying every match is unwinnable for Survivors. They are talking about games that have specifically entered a state that is basically lost and instead of letting it go to hatch (which is the lifeline for those kinds of matches), they just hide for 30 minutes.
Idk where you got the implication i was talking about EVERY game... I am also speaking on the games BHVR is referencing. Why would I mean the game as a whole?? Also, i mean... the game doesn't have to go to hatch, now does it. There's another route that I've spoken on a couple times in this post... 2 v 1...You slug one and go look for the other. Up to 4 minutes is needed to survive and then MAYBE you can get hatch. You realize there is no other option then, correct? The last 2 hide for 30 minutes hoping to not get found, and hoping the killer doesn't care for a mori/4k, so they can get the hatch. That's very common.
Let's be completely honest about the hatch mechanic. It's a chance, sure. No individual wants to have to play a HOF game of hide and seek or Cat and mouse for 4 minutes (25-30% of avg game time) to maybe get hatch or hope your exit gates aren't 2 feet away from each other.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/438777/solo-survivor-gamemode
You shouldn't be getting annihilated 9/10 times. Killers are so "strong" because they need to be able to somewhat compete against SWF. Until SWF gets a nerf, expect them to keep balancing this way. OR maybe they should fix the MMR so that you're being put with killers more your level.
Basically what you're advocating for is nerfing Discord. You play against SWF teams all the time and may not know it. 2,3, or 4 players. The difference that makes some teams give killers nightmares like Yoriichi does to Muzan is because they have the ability to actually communicate when and where to utilize perks or health states. There's something to be said about a PvP game that is crippled when people on a team are able to speak to one another. I understand not wanting to be taken over by the asymmetry, however, committing to NERFING playing with friends in an online game is oxymoronic and a way to speed run DBDs downfall.
-
@ObsidianButterfly said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3879006#Comment_3879006
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3879139#Comment_3879139
Preach.
I'm so sick of chase being the only thing allowed to exist. We need more trap killers. We need more macro-focused and area denial killers (Skull Merchant shouldn't have been changed into a chase killer). We don't need 30+ variations of Blight, Billy, or whatever chase killer survivors are not currently raging about.
It's wild because chase killers are the most anti-interaction killers in the game because they promote non-interaction (sorry, but occasionally dodging a dash is not interaction), yet nobody seems to want to admit that and instead declare the most interactive killers in the game "boring," "unfun," and "uninteractive." I feel like I'm being gaslit every time someone tries to argue that Blight is interactive when he is literally all about not interacting with him.
The problem with this mindset is the fundamentals we are playing with... DBD is not a true horror game. It's closer to a Horror-themed thriller. The bright maps, bright color outfits, and 2-note gameplay style give way to that idea imo. Survivors have 2 options: hold a button down or run from killer. Simply hiding all game has been deemed "rat" behavior so generally speaking it's not the best game play style given the general idea you should share hook stages as a team.
Trap killers aren't tonally in line with how people typically play the game and it's macro usage would be weird seeing as a trap or area denier as you suggested REQUIRE communication as we are now adding in more pure strategy elements which will also remove the horror aspect. The game doesnt have a voice chat or ping system for a reason. Can't be afraid when my team and I are running 40m dashes repeatedly to a gen over and over like old skull merchant required. Solo que players dont want to be in a chase and have that come to an abrupt halt because of a trap they couldnt see.
I understand your nuance about "interaction" but it's truly just how you want to use the word. Interacting with Blight and Interacting with SM are different but are still forms of interaction.
-
Jeepers Creepers for me
-
I think "strategic slugging" as many in this thread are calling it is simply bad game design. A couple scenarios mentioned like "someone sabos hook with person on shoulder... drop person and chase sabo person" and a couple more make sense... that person can be picked up by other teammates if the other can loop well enough.
Slugging for a 4k at end game though?! Oh, you've lost me.... it's literally anti-game. Anti-agency. Your best version of a gameplay loop forces a player to be option-less for upwards of 4 minutes? Which is roughly 26% of what I suspect is the average length of a match of 15 mins... crazy work. I
-
We all have our own reality based on the "soups" we have been given while playing DBD. I learned that from a YouTube video about how one side inevitably blames the other, so I won't completely dismiss your perspective... but I don't think statistical reasoning would agree with you or the people you're listening to. To have each line essentially ask "what went wrong" and you answer "survivors," is interesting to say the least. I could counter your argument with my own perspective as I do not see the rampant swfs, tbaggers, and bullies, but what does that solve?
Contrary to popular belief, most survivors are not swfs. So this idea that you're having to cut your teeth over and over in bully/sweaty/swf lobbies then meeting a solo team and destroying them doesn't make sense to me.
I'm told slugging and tunneling are the "most effective" ways to play the game, not a means to an end. So it isn't just some ptsd-filled reaction to being bullied.
It all just seems so tit for tat with you. This entire post was just trying to place blame on the whole because of the piece you were given. Killer mains don't nessecarily need a reason. Yes, running after them with a flashlight or DS could lead to bad news, but for that I blame the games foundational design. People want VALUE. Period. That's why the meta exists.
Who wants to bring flashlights each game and be across the map for every pick up? I'm sure one could argue it's also toxic to blind a killer after every pallet kick, no? Who wants to bring a Sabo build (as I've done) and the way of the game REQUIRE that you chase after the killer, to no avail 90% of the time? Enough people playing a "dont hook me" build and I'll be seeing a few posts about that here soon enough...
In MY eyes, this post and the thousands like it fail to realize it's not one side or the other. It's literally how DBD functions at its core. There are lots of unprotected gameplay aspects that make this a gambling sandbox. 1st out at 5 gens, no hook game, 4 slugs waiting for 4 mins... all possibilities.
-
The long lunge is the worst mechanic in the game even considering all powers and perks...
The distance a killer covers in that motion at whatever speed it is has effectively stunted the "close shave" aspect of the game especially when you consider how ping and hit detection is so weird in this game (see all DBD funny montages). The distance at which you should monitor between you and the killer is now more subjective to each game. You have the foot distance, the lunge distance, and the swing distance all to account for... wack
Some time ago, I think I heard a call of duty exec say "you want people to blame themselves when something goes wrong... not the game."
You can't do anything about this now (nor do I want them to) but I've had too many games and seen too many where you just go "there was nothing you could've done there" and I think that is paradoxical to what a game is.
-
@EvilTwin said:
Sounds like you might be a bit burned out. Most games are always more fun in the beginning but I do agree that I don’t like alot of the directions the devs seem to be taking. The game is in the most balanced state it’s ever been in but ironically it seems that the more balanced it is the less fun it becomes.
As for playing survivor on controller, many comp players have said it’s an advantage which I do agree with. It’s just easier to loop things tight and control your character in general on controller, only thing that’s harder is flashlight saves but that too isn’t an issue with enough practice. Killer on controller is definitely at a disadvantage though but I’ve seen some incredible controller killers playing on a very high level, even Huntresses and Blights.
I started playing dbd 5 years ago and have felt burned out many times, go play something else for a few months and come back after a new chapter release or two. I guarantee the game will feel more fresh and enjoyable!
Btw, you do know that you can simply turn off crossplay if you don’t want to play against pc players right?The thing about that cross play option is not only do you have to have it turned off, but the other people in your lobby do to. You need 5 people who have specifically sought out the off switch which is rare. I did to test it and sat there for a very long time and couldn't find a game. Even if you do find a game after a century, you're probably gonna have to get real close with those people because you'll be seeing them again soon (next game.)
-
@Drew_Uke said:
Been playing dbd on console as a solo Q survivor for the best part of 2 years now. Over the past year or so things have really fallen off to the point i can maybe manage 2 games before turning off my console and not playing for weeks on end, whereas before I'd play for hours as loops were fun abd it was more about mind games rather than killers hitting you in annimations or with wall reading perks.
Firstly as a console player it's so much harder to do things PC take for granted (such as, if you look backwards on a controller you have to swivel your right joystick 180 whilst keeping your left in the exact same position (this is very difficult to do as both actions are the same forbthe brain to compute -like patting your head whilst rubbing your belly type thing. Whereas on pc you just hold down a key with left so no room for error). Which feels cheap when coming up against quick flick pc killers constantly. Moving on from the console issue though i think behaviour forgot in a game there are 5 players. By making it a 60% 4k rate for survivors (this is the figure quoted by devs as ideal) they are alienating 80% of their player base for the sake of 20%. That doesnt make any sense, be it as a game dev or from a busuness stand point . It's pushing more and more people away, you just need to look at the player numbers decreasing on steam. Is it just me or do you think things need to change? I personally cant decide if they need a new game/game mode which strips everything back or if they just need to make dbd 2 and try again. (I'd also prefer it if there was no crossplay between pc and consoles as think this would be more fair games).
I try to stay neutral logically even though I personally only find survivor fun to play. I've played killer just for challenges, but it has never stuck for me... that being said, it is my opinion after playing for over 600+ hours at this point, watching many many hours of youtubers plays this game, and looking at these forums that the variability/fun behavior accounts for is on the killer side and any attempts to make each survivor a threat on their own is met with backlash.
1. Killer is where the true variables shine. You get new powers, add ons, perks, skins, etc. New ways to play. With survivor it's just perks and skins. Same way to play. Many times you dont even get value from your perks unless you somewhat steer away from the regular game play loop which can cost you. I think the majority of thought is "how do we make this new Killer enticing to play AS, not enticing to play AGAINST." Look at clown...
2. As the game exists, survivor gameplay is you live and die by your team. You're splashing to stay above water with each teammate holding another's ankle in a chain effect hoping it turns out well. This is why there are so many loose ends in the game play (2v1 where you're just left to bleed for 4 minutes while someone HAS to play a certain way to have a chance at survival) and many others. I suggested a "give up" button where that bleeding survivor in the 2v1 has to only wait maybe 2 minutes before they CAN strategically die so the other could maybe escape without lasting 4+ minutes. Killer sided people basically said "no I should be able to keep you hostage to ensure my 4k otherwise it isn't fair."
3. There are no side objectives. TCM is flawed, but at least with the 4v3 mechanic, you allow for multiple escape paths where it may be hard but you can strategically win on your own if need be. You're not just stuck. You can then add more escape types as you go. Even hatch in DBD is considered bad for the game by many even though it functions as a fail-safe for a single individual. Killers are "balanced" around needing to hook 12 times so there are no meaningful cool downs and now it seems they're gonna keep giving each new Killer multiple powers (Dredge, Chuck, Vecna, Alien, and Dracula).
-
@Rumplestiltskin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3766451#Comment_3766451
I'd have to give a big fat NO on that one. We clearly were not thinking the same thing. I don't have a problem with someone on the ground taking themselves out so as not to have to wait to bleed out (particularly if the Killer is being a jerk or simply can't find you), but I have a BIG problem with you taking yourself out to give the other person the hatch. No, just no. The Killer has just as much right to try and earn hooks and points as the Survivors and you looking for a way to short that Player is not right.
Uh yes that may be true however they are not and should not be guaranteed kills simply because the game thinks survivors should all be tied together with chains. So you think it's fair the killer can play to the games obviously blaring stale section in which a survivor is tasked with looping for an additional 4+ minutes because the game can't punish killers for leaving a survivor on the ground for that long? It's completely OK to you that someone's game is effectively over but they have to sit in the game an additional 4 minutes so you (the killer) get a few more blood points? 4k's and 4 outs for survivors should not be easy to get.
-
Sorry, I would just like to clarify that when I said "1 of 2 survivors in the game" that was for situations in which one is slugged and the other now has to wait out or be chased for 4+ minutes in a potential end game map set up with less pallets. This isnt concrete but the idea was that if 3 or 4 are alive with 1 person up, it didnt necessarily need to be an option given. There are information perks that give your position away so surviving that 4 minutes is extremely daunting. Not sure if that was communicated well.
-
@Rumplestiltskin said:
This would only be a good option, in my opinion, if we are down to the LAST Survivor. I don't see any reason the last remaining slugged Survivor in the game shouldn't be able to accelerate the bleed out. However, none of this 1-2 nonsense. Just because you want to give up doesn't mean the other Survivor doesn't want their chance to look for hatch. Nor do you automatically know if they have something that would let them get back up.
I don't think we are thinking of the same thing. In my idea it is down to 2 survivors and one is on the ground while the other is up in the situation where the killer leaves you slugged to go find the other person. The downed survivor dies early so the other survivor can find hatch. It's an altruistic OPTION if they think the up survivor won't be able to get them back up and instead will just cause all 4 survivors to die instead of 3. You don't have to do it if your game calls for waiting and playing it out.