jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
Spirit's not on her deathbed, calm down.
That being said, I'd be pretty happy if they decided to rework the Nurse. She doesn't need nerfing, her power is pretty fair and consistent right now, but the problem is that she's kind of a bottleneck for how strong any perks or basekit decisions are allowed to be, because she'll make everything seem three times as strong due to how powerful she is. I don't want to see her be less picked, I don't want to see her require less skill, but something to remedy that issue would be a pretty healthy decision for the game imo
-
@ad19970 said:
Sadly, the more I play, the more I agree with the Dead Hard nerf, but I wonder if it would be smarter to further balance this game in different areas so that Dead Hard doesn't need nerfing anymore. The biggest reason it's so good is because killers play against the time so strictly, and/or bcause some maps just too many safe loops.
Iron Will I think is fine, and Unbreakeable as well, it only works once, but I can see why some people think it's too much. Borrowed Time in particular is fine as well in my opinion, even if it can be abused a bit maybe. I don't see it much as a second chance perk though. NOED would be fine, in my opinion, if survivors knew NOED existed at the start of the match. But then dull totems would further lose meaning.
These are mostly good suggestions- I have some reservations about Iron Will but otherwise the only thing I disagree with here is NOED. IF one were to give NOED another downside, I'd sooner point to it being announced to survivors as soon as it activates as opposed to when someone's hit, but even that probably isn't necessary as the perk really isn't strong or unfair in its current state.
What I want to highlight is the idea that Dead Hard only sucks so much to go against because the killer is on such a strict time constraint. If the game were slowed down in general, things like Dead Hard or how much pressure medkits deny you would be much much less of a problem, because you wouldn't be losing horrifically precious time from them and you'd have the ability to come back from it if the survivor doesn't continue playing well enough to evade you while exhausted.
-
Commenting because this poll lacks nuance- the answer is "no and that's not a problem", it's not a horror game and has no responsibility or expectation to be scary.
-
Seconding that it very much isn't a horror game and nor should it try to be, it's a game that uses horror aesthetics and tropes for a fun game of cat and mouse.
-
Indifferent. People are wildly overblowing how much worse the sweat is, it wasn't all that much better before and I've had a lot more fun, close games myself.
Could it be improved? Absolutely. Is it a failure? No.
-
So, I've watched this video a few times and I really don't get what the hype is here. It looks nice, sure, and I'm impressed with it as a recreation of Haddonfield in another game's system, but it doesn't look that much nicer than the one we have? There's a little more detail inside the houses, that much I like and would like to see if and when Haddonfield is on the metaphorical operating table for their map rework/retouching series, but looking at this as something to actually play a match of Dead By Daylight on I have to agree that it looks nightmarish. It's way too dark, and I don't really have a good sense as to whether this version of the Myers House would be well balanced so I can't comment on that part.
I don't understand this idea of "the horror atmosphere", do people just think that means "dark"? I guess I get that, but this game has gameplay that's severely hampered by the map being too dimly lit so it's not a good fit here.
-
Straight away I think he'd be better if his yellow gas activated just a little bit quicker, so it's more immediately usable.
-
@Snowbawlzzz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559471#Comment_2559471
It's not possible that this topic is creating a real problem. Everyone who's played killer for 3 matches knows a P3 Claudette blends in really well.
People making an argument are just doing it to sate their crusader complex
I'm pretty sure you're right, but isn't it possible that there's some context we might be missing? It's not harmful to entertain the notion and see if there's a possibility there might be something up here.
-
@Snowbawlzzz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559459#Comment_2559459
Because the people willing to make these arguments are the opposite of reasonable, and might attract the attention of gaming journalists
I don't really know what the relevance of gaming journalists is, so moving on from that...
How do you know the arguments aren't reasonable if you react so strongly to the mere concept of the discussion? Aren't you worried you might be over-correcting and risking missing a real problem because you won't even entertain the mere possibility of one existing?
-
Where's the harm in just discussing this, even if we quickly come to the conclusion that it's probably not a problem? I don't see why so many people are reacting so strongly to the mere idea of discussing this topic at all, it seems perfectly reasonable to at least hear out the arguments in good faith.
-
@Seraphor said:
Have it work on special attacks.
Have it guarantee to hit the closest generator if there's none in range.
I considered that, but it might be a little too strong at that point. It wouldn't be super fair to have a survivor make the right play by pulling you all the way on the other side of the map to a 3-gen and then have your down still affect one of those generators, just off the top of my head.
-
Michael's various stun sounds. They somehow sound incredibly fitting despite the guy never making a sound beyond ominous/giddy breathing in his source material, and they're just a surprisingly sonically pleasing noise.
Aurgh...
-
@Mad_Sochi said:
Jesterkind. Why are you talking about balance and mechanics ?
Where you see the connection of Graphics update with balance and mechanics ?
When the game was born - such graphic's level WAS a normal thing. Developers doesn't know will be the game popular or not. They don't have enough money. It was a test. But Now... After 5 years and all of money income - such graphic's level is not a normal thing. Only the shame in 2022. IMHO
I bring it up because a game developer company has to split its focus among those things equally. The guy who made that video doesn't have to do that; they have the luxury of just making something that looks good in a video and not having to worry about anything else, because it's being done as a hobby.
You're right, new games don't look like DBD. What I don't understand is why that's a problem- DBD is an older game than things coming out in 2022, why is a bad thing that it looks it?
-
I'd echo the idea that it's more the addons that need work, I think with Spirit and Slinger's upcoming adjustments most of the killers' basekits are in a pretty decent spot. It could be that you could adjust some killers to make them more consistent/fun by changing multiple things, some of which end up being nerfs, but I don't think any really require a straight nerf on its own.
Also, Twins actually need a buff imo. The cooldown on successfully downing someone with Victor is absolutely fine but please let me swap back to Charlotte during it so I'm not just standing there, that technically results in longer slugging than if there wasn't a cooldown at all.
-
@Mad_Sochi said:
One guy made such a beautiful map and characters like the real life.
And whole game studio CAN NOT ???
It's a f...ng ridiculous !
Well, that one guy doesn't have to worry about game balance, gameplay mechanics, clipping from specific characters, getting out of bounds, functioning for chases, tile spawn support, visibility for tracking survivors/spotting the killer, discussing back and forth with the license holder...
Besides, maybe it isn't about can't. Maybe BHVR don't want the game to look this way and we're more likely to see it go a stylised route to stave off aging poorly. Or maybe they don't care about it looking slightly older than its contemporaries! Because it doesn't really matter that it looks older.
-
I would be legitimately interested in hearing the reasons people think it's racially charged, because it does seem like a reach from where I'm sitting- but I'm not black myself, so it's totally possible that I'm missing some kind of context from that.
Claudette's skin isn't even the only reason she's good for the blending, too, she's also small, quiet, and has dark cosmetics. I'm not sure if that's been discussed in the conversations you mentioned, though.
-
@botrax said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559352#Comment_2559352
Its mostly because the game look like s*** compare to other game specially when you take into account the game dont have much in a match.
The game look like a ps3 game at best and even then some ps3 game look way much better compare to dbd.
Sure, but is that a problem? The game doesn't have actively bad graphics, just average and okay graphics. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have better graphics, but I don't understand it as something that must change or the devs are being put to shame/the game is in an actively worse, detrimental state because of it.
@Mad_Sochi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559352#Comment_2559352
When monster use the MORI and taking off the survivior's head and nothing happens with survivior's model - it looks like Minecraft graphics.
When survivior is on hook and screaming sometimes and even mouth position doesn't syncronized with sounds... LoL.
The DbD graphics is very ridiculous. 5 years old game. In 2022 ! LoL.
It is NOT a World of Warcraft where you need to update and paint the WHOLE BIG WORLD with new game engine from zero.
Here is in DBD just a little maps with LOW amount of 3D objects. And characters. That all.
Same here- is that actually a problem? It looks fine, and they're even in the process of updating it right now. The fact that there's no dynamic gore is an active stylistic decision, by the way, not a graphics limitation- they don't want it to be too nasty.
-
I mean, sure, this looks nice, but is the way DBD looks really a problem? Outside of a few face rigs messing up (Jonathan and Jill especially), the game looks fine. I've never understood the idea that it's somehow a flaw with the game or a mark of shame for the devs that it doesn't look top of the range.
-
Those comments both seem fair- my only reason for thinking of the range is that it makes it a lot more map-dependant then I think it really needs to be. As is, it's almost definitely going to hit a generator on, say, The Game, but it'll be a lot less useful on one of the larger maps.
Even so, just making it work on special attacks would be pretty substantial, so maybe best to test that part first.
-
I only recently watched (some of) the Halloween movies, and it's definitely rocketed up to take number one spot of the licenses that have made it into DBD. I found Texas Chainsaw Massacre a movie that kinda fell apart after the first two thirds of pretty good setup, and I enjoyed Stranger Things quite a bit- but not as much as the first Halloween movie.
Balance aside, I think the license for Halloween was integrated pretty damn well. Haddonfield does feel like the place the movie is set in for the most part, Myers looks and feels amazing - even sounding good despite the man being silent save for giddy breathing as he kills someone in the movie - and while Laurie doesn't look like Jamie Lee Curtis she looks uncannily like the comics BHVR said they based her likeness on, so I consider that a success too.
-
I think there's a middle ground, I think this system is just far too overzealous. I get the idea, but it's misguided- all this system needs to censor are outright slurs and maybe a few specific insults, even most curse words are probably fine. Even still, if it only censored outright curse words, that wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.
Short version: I'm on board with having people trying to call me the n-word or the f-slur censored, but there's no need to expand it to innocuous words.
-
@Legionair said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559111#Comment_2559111
are you saying just because I have a different opinion means I am not capable?
No, I'm saying that you're assuming I'm not capable. Me disagreeing with you doesn't "sound like [I] don't play killer", it sounds like I disagree with you. This upcoming patch has excellent and long-needed changes to the game in it, most of which are for killer, so I disagree with the sentiment that killers are somehow being neglected or unfairly victimised.
-
@Legionair said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559077#Comment_2559077
I am just going to say, I dont think you understand as much because it sounds like you dont play killer as competitively or nearly as much as most. but thank you for your input
I play killer exclusively and I do it moderately well, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a filthy biased [Other Side] main. I'm just capable looking at the game as a whole instead of falling into the trap of assuming """my side""" is being unfairly maligned.
-
This post kinda baffles me, if I'm honest. This upcoming midpatch is looking to be great for Killer, and even adding in Mikaela to the mix doesn't really change that? A bunch of Killers got addon passes on top of the two who got basekit mechanic buffs, Spirit's nerfs were well deserved and Slinger is gonna be in basically the exact same spot he was before, keys are being completely gutted... sure, survivors get one strong perk buff and Mikaela is going to add some strong stuff for them, but this patch categorically is weighted in the killer's favour.
A nerf isn't always a slap in the face for """your side""", you know. Sometimes they're just necessary for game balance.
-
@MrCalac123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2558165#Comment_2558165
I have no interest in discussion with people who clearly claim to understand the game and it's issues when they very clearly do not. Especially when the have the nerve to say such foolish things such as "Oh Survivors don't even use these perks in the top ranks!".
It's ridiculous and a waste of my time. Ask any streamer what perks Survivors use in the top MMR, what a bad joke.
You want discussion? Be someone who acknowledges the issues this game has and don't dare to pretend everything is fine. SBMM sucks BECAUSE everything is not fine. If the game was balanced SBMM would be awesome but it's not, so I'm sick of seeing people claim that the system is the issue and not the glaring problems the game has from a balance stand point.
The game is not balanced at a high level for 90% of Killers, and this is because of broken maps and Survivor perks being 16 second chances at minimal to no cost. That or a perk that negates an entire mechanic such as Iron Will, along with Medkits, SWF, map offerings, etc.
Anyone who denies this does not play Killer, and if they do they damn sure do not play Killer at a high level. Killer has it's own issues too, but they are NOTHING compared to Survivor issues.
Okay, but they didn't say that. They said that players at top ranks don't like those perks- as in, they also agree those perks are annoying to face, and just don't agree they should be nerfed. The comment about being used is when they're present in a match but don't get capitalised on- how often does UB actually let someone pick themselves up? I can speak to this being relevant, I don't often get hit with DS and I don't often see UB come into play, even if they're in almost every game that I play in.
So it's not that people are trolling you, or wasting your time, or making bad jokes, it's that you assumed the worst and most bad-faith interpretation of their words and then got mad at it.
-
@MrCalac123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2558135#Comment_2558135
"DS was the only one needing nerfed and looked what happened" Yeah it became a properly balanced perk that is still worth running but actually comes with a proper downside to get use out of it, shocking I know. It's okay, you aren't used to second chance perks having a cost, you'll get used to it.
Results trump bias, Sprint Burst is a preference but still is not as good as a properly used Dead Hard.
If you think Killer is some magical walk in the park where at the highest MMR you can just 3 hook everyone casually while not playing Blight, Spirit or Nurse, and maaaybe Bubba, you aren't a Killer main. What you are is a liar, and a bad one at that. I don't need to counter whatever drivel you spew because arguing against every single dumb thing you say is a blatant waste of time, and since you are clearly not here for any sensible discussion but just to regurgitate opinions that scream you don't actually play the game, I'm just going to save myself time and ignore you from here on out. You are not a Killer main and if you are, you damn sure guaranteed have not gotten to high MMR with a non meta Killer.
Damn, bro, there's no need to get this hostile over it.
What's the point of even making this post at all if you aren't going to listen to the things people have to say?
-
The Xenomorph itself is honestly dead last in reasons why I'd want this property. Ripley as a survivor, a spaceship/space station as the map... those are the things I'd really want to see.
-
@MrCalac123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2557996#Comment_2557996
They are OBJECTIVELY second chance perks, besides maybe Borrowed Time. Even then I don't MIND second chance perks, but there MUST be a cost. Decisive got one: You can't do anything for 60 seconds. Now the rest need one too. Top Survivors run all of these perks for a reason, they are good and FREE. Free with no cost or downside, and cover nearly every strategy a Killer could employ, along with SWF comms, boosted Medkits, map offerings for one of the many broken maps in the game, etc.
Iron Will and Borrowed Time are absolutely not second chance perks at all, they don't negate the downside of making a mistake- you're going to be injured some of the time and you're going to be hooked some of the time, it doesn't necessarily mean you made a mistake. They're just strong utility perks, not second chance perks.
Regarding cost, maybe- that's definitely one way to balance them. DS has one because that's the best way to balance DS, but some of them could maybe do with more of just a straight nerf instead. Take Unbreakable- IF you wanted to adjust Unbreakable, and that's a huge IF, then the better play is to remove the faster recovery time for the one instance of picking yourself up, and then keeping the faster recovery time after that's used up. That's not a downside or a cost, it's just a nerf- and it's probably not even necessary.
Some of the perks on your list even HAVE downsides/costs, like NOED and as you even mention, DS.
So that leaves, what, Dead Hard? That's the one problematic perk on your list, it's not a problem with "second chance perks", it's a problem with Dead Hard, and even that's a maybe regarding your overall suggestion.
-
Some of these perks aren't even second chance perks, and they're pretty much all both fine and something you can play around.
The only one I really agree with is Dead Hard, but I don't think either of OP's suggestions work to fix it, and I don't know what I'd do about it either. It's really more just very annoying than a huge problem.
-
@Billy_Capră said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2557639#Comment_2557639
It is directed at your statement that the game is competitive. I explained how it isn't.
"The overall goal is a competing one- they want to escape and you want to stop them- and the minute-to-minute goal is a competing one, because you want to win the looping session and so do they."
This statement doesn't work. There is no competition there. The trial isn't a looping session. The trial is a goalie (killer) protecting a goal (gates) from an offensive team (survivors). This series of scored events never switches. The defense never switches to offense, which is why I mentioned tournaments, because they make that switch between the two rounds, making the series competitive.
In order for something to be competitive, it needs to be understood, compared, and judged between all parties, using a standard. So, again, you can compare the actions of the four survivors in the trial, as they perform the same actions. But, you cannot compare the killer's ability to down someone vs the survivor's ability to down someone, because survivors cannot down anybody. Likewise, the killer will fail, every time, at scoring flashlight blinds (for example), as that is not something the killer can do.
What you are calling competitive is the equivalent of one person swimming in a race against someone on a bicycle. You wouldn't dare to compare those two things, so how would one compare the actions of the killer vs the actions of a survivor? It's impossible.
This game is not competitive. The tournament scene can make it competitive though, and I am fully supportive of that scene. It's the same as Smash. Nintendo doesn't design Smash to be some huge tournament game, and all-in-all it's really casual. But the community took it to a new level of competition with community rules and the creation of a tournament scene.
I respect that you have a very different definition of "competitive" to me, but as I said, I'm not interested in arguing this point as it is neither the one I was originally making or one that's particularly relevant to OP's point.
-
@Billy_Capră said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2557556#Comment_2557556
How, exactly, is this game competitive?
Who does the killer compete against? Who do the survivors compete against?
The killer competes against themselves. They do not compete against the survivors, as they do not even play the same game as the survivors. The survivors technically compete against each other, in a meaningless way, because they all perform the same actions that generate the same points, and as such their scores at the end of the trial can be compared. And that's how all competition works, "Who is the best at doing a series of particular things?" The killer's score cannot be compared to the survivors, as the actions that generated that score cannot be performed by the survivors and vice versa.
This is why this game has no actual win condition, as it is not actually competitive on any level between killers and survivors. Survivors are objects that the killer uses to boost their score, and the same can be said for the killer in the survivors' gameplay loop.
With tournaments, it's a bit different, as both teams play rounds in both roles, so it becomes killer vs. killer and survivors vs. survivors, making the total series of matches competitive. But a single trial is non-competitive between killers and survivors.
This game has always been, and will always be, a casual party game that a loud, vocal (and honestly pretty obnoxious) minority try to shoehorn "high-level play" into and force everyone else to play at that level, making the experience for the majority, who just want to grind BPs and have fun, a less fun experience.
The current MMR system is based on a lot of these facts. The devs know they can't balance around two completely different games being played simultaneously. But, they can set it up in a way where, over time, most people should average out to around a 50% kill/escape rate. They have never stated that it is there to make the game more competitive but to make matches feel fairer. At the same time, they have removed any visual representation of rank or skill (this should be a pretty big clue to what they are trying to tell the community).
There's a lot of people who need to stop seeing the game for what they want it to be, and start seeing the game for what it is. If you want competition, there are groups and private scrims for that. But leave it there, and just play pub matches for the fun of it (which is how the game is designed). Play the match, get your participation trophy (in the sense of BPs), say GG, and move on with your grind. No matter what, you win every match, as there is no win condition, and you are really only competing against yourself.
Half of that isn't really directed at me so I'll ignore that part, not trying to be nasty just that it's aimed more at the people who want DBD to be an esport tournament type game and that ain't me, I just don't think it's an impossible feat if you do want it.
You are absolutely competing against the survivors, because they're trying to evade you. The overall goal is a competing one- they want to escape and you want to stop them- and the minute-to-minute goal is a competing one, because you want to win the looping session and so do they. DBD is a competitive party game as opposed to a party game where all players are trying to reach a goal together. It's not that deep, man, competitive doesn't mean taking it seriously to achieve the win.
That's the last I'm going to say on this point, it wasn't particularly something I wanted to argue for and that's why it was a brief aside just to make sure everyone was on the same page for my initial post.
-
@knight_killer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2557556#Comment_2557556
PVP =/= competitive. One side can win but it's not really competitive this is a party game at best with how much of the match is determined by chance.
The rank system has always sucked, it makes people overly competitive and 'tryhard' and this new MMR system has seemed to amplify that. The MMR system doesn't really do anything new but when people here that it's in place they care a lot and start to play to win. Ever since this system has came out I noticed that survivors tend to leave teammates behind more and killers facecamp to confirm more kills.
This game used to have such a novel idea but as it gained popularity skillful play of it became the limelight when it honestly never seemed to be the intention. Both devs and players need to remember that they ultimately gain no skill rating for being the victor just 5,000 more points. This game has gotten a lot less light hearted over the years.
That's actually exactly literally what competitive means, hence me stating the assumption that we were talking about something different. Competitive just means players are competing against one another instead of cooperating together, that's what the term means, and it's a scourge of gaming currently that it's become synonymous with esports type stuff.
That said, I agree with both statements made about DBD being more fun when it's considered more of a fun party game than an esport.
-
I assume by "competitive" you mean like, "tournament ready", since the game is already competitive.
I don't think it's that far fetched, honestly. Even this game isn't that far off, outside of some specific problem areas and certain map RNG components. Give the teams the same tile spawn variant of like, Coal Tower, and that's a tournament ready game right there. Granted, it's a tournament that's only going to see a handful of characters and builds, but that's the case in some other tournament games too to a certain degree.
-
Taking things like addons and a map that doesn't actively screw him over into account, I think Myers falls just barely at the bottom of C tier. He's a little weak, but the problem is more that he's clunky and outdated, at least in my opinion.
-
@GuyFawx said:
arent they reworking it not deleting?
Hawkins is being disabled as BHVR loses the Stranger Things license.
-
I'm not- I've had some of my most fun games on that map, it is/was absolutely stellar for the stealth killers. It's a shame it's leaving, and I hope they recycle the layout for a differently-themed map sometime.
-
Disabling offerings is just a bandaid solution- being sent to those maps randomly is still going to suck even if map offerings are completely removed from the entire game, after all. Even outside of those maps currently being wildly outbalanced, it's fine in general if any given killer has weak/strong maps, and as someone else pointed out, it's great when the killer can send themselves somewhere more well-suited to their strengths and playstyle.
What I'd suggest is that BHVR should add a series of offerings that reduce the likelihood of being sent to a specific realm, so everyone can avoid being sent to whichever map they most despise- which is probably going to end up being RPD until that's fixed, since even Haddonfield has some killers that do okay on it, but that just returns to the fact that some maps simply need proper overhauls.
-
Absolutely Robin for Nancy, she ruled.
I'd be pretty down for a Dr Loomis for Laurie, or maybe baby Paul Rudd from Halloween 6? That movie wasn't very good, but he was a pretty interesting character. I'd like some variant masks for Michael too- maybe even the dumbass clown mask he stole in Halloween 4, but really, just the increasingly weathered looking masks would be cool. Mostly I kinda want BHVR to make up new stuff for these characters, but I understand that might be hard to get license holder permission for...
-
If you've never seen the original Halloween, I strongly recommend it, extremely good movie.
In terms of games, Alien Isolation is a remarkably tense and nervewracking game, but I think most people have probably played it by now.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2555711#Comment_2555711
Problem is when you have SWF, where all know what is strongest loop and will go there each time. (Haddonfield -> Myer's house).
Then you can either always give up and let them recover or commit for one chase, then get him into basement and camp the hell out of him.
Sure, but that's a problem with those areas, not with the concept of being in a chase. Even in those situations, the call is either to see if you can mindgame, or drop the chase, there's nothing that needs to be changed about the concept of being in a chase for that to be addressed.
-
It's not so much a terrible spot on its own (though it's certainly not good) but there's a totem on Haddonfield that spawns on one of the upper floors, in one of the houses...
...In the adjacent room to where a survivor can spawn, close enough that they spawn in hearing the crackling if it's a hex.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2555999#Comment_2555999
Yup!
The single funniest moment was me playing Pig. We were on that bloody elementary school map (always forget the name) with the long tunnel underground.
I spotted someone going down, crouched and followed. I ran into a conga line of survivors all making their way happily along, and joined the end of the line. It took them a good few seconds to spot me, and I wish I could have seen their reactions IRL.
Someone probably needed to do laundry after that one.
Both of the most fun moments I've had were when in a KYF, but the general idea stays the same; in one, a friend of mine was running SM Myers, and specifically positioned herself so I'd run into her when rounding a corner to go down the stairs, resulting in my shrieking in surprise over the voice comms.
Play up the campiness and hamminess of your average horror movie and you're gonna have a whale of a time, it's by far the best way to play the game.
-
Gotta second that mindset- being an immersed survivor is boring as hell, but being an immersed killer is another story entirely. It's a lot more fun when you approach it like a horror movie!
Some of the most fun I've had both as the killer and as the survivor has been with Scratched Mirror Myers for that exact reason, it's a ton of fun to lurk and jumpscare, or round a corner and come face to face with those cold, black eyes, the devil's eyes...
-
I wouldn't personally phrase it quite like that, but I think you're onto something with the idea that it's a reaction to the game's pace. It reminds me of the few times you see survivors get very very mad at killer tactics/perks when they go out of their way to signal that they want to be sweaty by using a strong map offering, items, perks, etc.
If you're winning, you should expect the other team to try harder, right?
-
Perhaps this is just me, but I honestly think the only thing more boring in design than a simple instadown is a simple instadown that doesn't work some of the time.
I don't have a problem with the current Iri Head and I definitely don't think the devs did anything wrong with it - it had one specific problem and they fixed that one specific problem - but I do agree that it's a kinda lacklustre design. Making it only work at a certain range is just frustrating, though - unless it's a low range that's intended to only prevent melee hatchets. That I'd be on board with.
-
Teabagging CAN just be being cheeky and playful, in most instances. Teabagging at the exit gate and running out without letting the killer hit you is just to be aggravating, though.
-
Why on Earth would they do that? Being in a chase is fun and being facecamped isn't. Besides, if you're genuinely being run for five gens, you should probably have dropped that chase way sooner.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2555503#Comment_2555503
Well, if such a rule were to be put in place, NOED should be the exception by merit of how terribly designed that perk is, is my point.
Even if that were true (which is an assertion I think is very very silly) the response would be to redesign NOED, not exclude it from game mechanics out of misguided spite.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2555495#Comment_2555495
Problem is that it's not an issue as long you know that it can spawn there.
That's why I have been using Detective's hunch for like hundred games to learn all possible totem spawns, now it is really rare for me not to find any hex, as long I find 1 totem, I can usually find rest, because there is pattern.
True, but the ideal situation would be that you can seek out totems without having to rely on something like Detective's Hunch or Counterforce to locate something that's incredibly out of the way and obscured. Obviously totems should take some looking for, but there are some in the game that are a little too difficult to find without aura reading perks.
Granted, most of the bad totem spawns are bad because they're out in the open and way too easy to spot, but it's important to note that fixing the totem spawns would be beneficial for both sides, not just killer.
-
@MarcoPoloYolo said:
No, because it doesn't address what's wrong with the concept at all. Survivors are given powerful hex perks that can't be removed, unlike the Killer.
Powerful perks that they have to not be doing the objective to maintain, though. And they can be removed- just not one-and-done, which is good, because that means it's an actual reason for survivors not to be on generators and not a temporary annoyance that doesn't affect anything in the long run.