jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@HugTechLover said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293641#Comment_3293641
Its not a free health state….? If you were in the snowman…. And you got hit… DID YOU, OR DID YOU NOT, lose a health state? You are most definitely skirting.
Nothing to let go Lmaoo, I could care less about the snowman. I play the game the same way regardless and survivors will stay mad.
Good day
The heck do survivor players have to do with this?
Anyway, IF you were fully in the snowman, you did not lose a health state... until about five seconds later when the killer turns around and hits you again, because you got no distance and the killer only had to wait for their weapon wipe to be done. Not a third health state a la Dead Hard, but much more like a protection hit if you were standing still when the teammate was hit.
Add on to that the fact that you need a pretty noticeable head start to be fully in the snowman before the killer could hit you, and the things were damn near useless in chase.
-
@HugTechLover said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293620#Comment_3293620
Why are you trying to skirt around the fact that they were a free health state? They were more than a mild annoyance. It was basically another dead hard to extend the chase if there was a snowman near a loop.
I'm not trying to skirt around anything, they just weren't a free health state.
You could be hit while entering the snowmen, and you got extremely little distance after being hit out of one due to a lack of a speed boost. Even less distance if the snowman was struck from the front. I played during that event, and I remember that this was all overblown overreaction at the time, too.
It's been a year. It's time to let it go.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293607#Comment_3293607
They also wrecked Myers...and unless I'm mistaken, they reset Trickster laceration?
That's 3, possibly 4 entire killers countered. 10.
Myers couldn't stalk through them but was otherwise unaffected, he'd just smack them. Trickster laceration may be reset, but his knives also broke the snowmen entirely iirc so he was actually one of the better killers to play if you wanted to completely ignore them.
Even if it were four, more than four killers completely invalidated the snowmen entirely. Even if we were to assume the snowmen actually functioned as a third health state (as opposed to what they were, a highly situational and marginally useful protection hit), the amount of killers that completely circumvented them would've made them a mild annoyance at best. A three or four, not a ten.
They weren't actually a problem last year, people overreacted. Still, for the record, this year is better, since there were edge cases that prevented the snowmen from their intended purpose.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293586#Comment_3293586
Eh. This is more like going from a '10' one way to a '2' the other way.
In terms of being unbalanced? Nah, it went from a 2 to a 0. The snowmen weren't unbalanced last year save for the interactions with Twins and Ghostface, and they're not unbalanced at all this year.
-
I was wondering if someone would start complaining about snowmen being unbalanced in the opposite direction this year, I'm surprised it took this long.
Regardless, I don't think that's necessarily required, but it would help emphasise the stealth element of the snowmen. Maybe next year!
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293500#Comment_3293500
You take away hook suiciding and it will get astronomically worse.
Wait, why? It'd be the same amount, because people who would've hook suicided are now just staying AFK. It's the same number of useless teammates throwing matches, with the sole difference that they have to actually wait it out or eat a penalty- an improvement from the angle of not allowing a convenient out for those players, but neutral from the perspective of everyone else's experience.
Heck, as OP says, you can technically farm off AFK players so it's a very slight improvement.
-
I've considered that myself, often from the starting point of Luck being an outdated and terrible mechanic. It wouldn't be the worst idea to remove taking a chance to escape entirely, unless you have Slippery Meat or Deliverance. It'd certainly cut down on the amount of people getting to leave matches early without incurring a penalty.
Remove Luck, put escape chances on Slippery Meat and Deliverance (or hell, rework Slippery Meat entirely and just have it on Deliverance), and rework the handful of perks + offerings that revolve around Luck to do something else. If nothing else, there'd be some more new perks to play around with afterwards, I highly doubt anyone is going to be severely affected since I feel like everyone who wants to unhook themselves just brings Deliverance anyway.
Hooks breaking after someone dies is fine, though. It shifts the playing field and creates deadzones for the killer, which gives survivors a slight edge to counteract the gigantic loss of losing an entire teammate for the rest of the trial.
-
I've never understood why people think the devs are trying to make this game "competitive", at least insofar as the way that word's being used here.
Outside of hosting official tournaments, the actual changes to the game seem more geared towards preserving its more laid-back approach. Hell, they even took away the ranked ladder and replaced it with normal matchmaking and a simple bloodpoint reward, that definitely doesn't scream 'competitive' to me.
The game still needs to be balanced, even if it's casual. Obnoxious overpowered stuff still needs to be brought in line, and while you're at it you might as well encourage variety by buffing weak stuff.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293012#Comment_3293012
You're facing two other issues
1: Trying to balance one killer against 4 survivors.
2: DBD has a snowball nature not seen in a lot of other games. The first chase or two are massively important. If it lasts for two minutes, survivors likely have multiple gens done. If survivor goes down quick either do to bad luck or being the weak link on the team, the survivors are now slowed down as they'll be constantly rescuing healing throughout the match.
I'm not sure I understand how these are issues for the matchmaking system?
Certainly I think the killer/survivor balance is difficult, but that's not a matchmaking thing. I'm also not sure what your point is with the second part there, is it just that bad teammates can lose you games super early? Because that is true of other games too, just to a less sharply obvious degree.
-
Broken for me too!
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293029#Comment_3293029
Well, the issue is that the MM is one-dimensional. Aside from not considering that teamwork is required, it considers no other actions other than escaping. You can engage in a chase, you can do all the gens, you can do all the altruism possible but if you've not escaped, it won't matter.
All these games, to some extent whether lesser or bigger, do consider these things. If you are the top-performer of a lost game, you will lose less MMR than someone who was at the bottom of the scoreboard. But DBD considers absolutely nothing of this - when it would benefit the most out of a system that does.
Again, do they? I definitely saw some that definitely don't, they only consider if you won/lost and what the MMR of your opponent was in relation to yours.
If they don't, I certainly see why. It'd be really, really difficult to assign all the right values to all the relevant moving parts of a match, especially considering you don't really need to when the overall winrate will tell you pretty reliably if someone's performing well. If someone's not performing well and they're winning every match, there's something wrong that needs fixing completely disregarding the matchmaker- and the same goes for the reverse, if someone's performing well and losing, something's wrong that isn't related to the matchmaker.
If those things are important, they'll lead to you winning more. It's not a fundamentally broken concept, at least as far as I can see.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293012#Comment_3293012
It is true. The MM and the game is designed around being played as a team, but only accounts for your action - that action being a kill/escape.
This is alright for the killer because the killer can just tunnel vision two people out of the game pretty easily - and have a net neutral round. But a survivor's MM and skill is assessed purely on their actions - whereas to escape, you NEED your team to pull their weight. Since it's an asymm game - it's already heavily tilted against you.
You have hit on the one gap the current system has there, that being the gap it has for acknowledging teamwork. Luckily, if I recall correctly, the developers have mentioned they're looking into that.
All this system really needs is a softening of your loss if you die but your teammates escape. Sure, you'll lose games because of bad teammates still, but... of course you would, you'd lose in any other team-based game where your teammates aren't pulling their weight. The asymmetrical nature does mean you still need to be able to 'win' for the matchmaker if your team aren't good, but the fact that you can still lose isn't an issue.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292986#Comment_3292986
DBD is an asymmetrical game, whereas all the other games are symmetrical. Most of the games MM is based on being symmetrical.. But so is DBD's... Thats why its flawed.
I don't think that's necessarily true, since the important part still functions- that being, the killer winning means that specific survivor lost, so it's still a win/loss game where it still functions as an indication of skill. If you escape more often than you're sacrificed, you're either doing something right or there's something unbalanced going on, and the same goes in reverse and for killer.
The other games being symmetrical means they're easier to balance, but I don't think it matters too much for this particular aspect.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292942#Comment_3292942
The problem is that there's a comparison being made between two drastically different game genres
How d'you mean?
-
I started playing Apex Legends in the past week or so and that game seems to have a dramatically worse matchmaking system than DBD, just to pick a single example.
Also, do those other games use an algorithm? All the games I looked into the first time BHVR officially explained the MMR system seemed to work the exact same way; wins increase, losses decrease, the difference in MMR between you and your opponent determines how much it changes. Granted, this wasn't a huge sample size, but it was about five or six fairly prominent games.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3291987#Comment_3291987
there's a big difference between choosing to do nothing (or more accurately, nothing productive ) and being forced to do nothing
sounds like same end result.
With the pretty huge difference in that one feels neutral to the player and one feels awful to the player. A pretty important distinction for game design.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3291829#Comment_3291829
Because when a survivor expects some form of sportsmanship, its called the 'survivor handbook of how to play DBD', but when a killer expects sportsmanship its because the survivors are playing in a toxic way. Except nearly everything that killers perceive as toxic - has been removed from the game or are behaviours that don't impact the game/its outcome for the most bit.
Killers used to find key-squads toxic, so they nerfed keys. They found the hatch to be toxic, so they nerfed the hatch. They found flashlight clicking toxic, so they nerfed the flashlights. They found infinity looping toxic, so they nerfed it. A lot of these things that could be ignored and made completely redundant, or have other varying types of counter-play.
But when a survivor whines about a camper, a tunneller, or whatever else - It is our problem and we should always adjust to that behaviour and just deal with it.
Not to come down too hard on either side of the overall argument you're making here, but it is worth pointing out that literally nothing in that list of yours was nerfed for being "toxic".
Keys and the hatch were nerfed for being unbalanced, flashlight clicking was nerfed because it was causing seizures, and infinite loops are clearly unbalanced so that's why that was nerfed too.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3291817#Comment_3291817
I think the perk should be given a different niche, but even if you like what Eruption is meant to achieve right now there are better and more healthily balanced ways of achieving it.
like what? what exactly will reduce the survivor's total up-time on generators? its only perk right now that punishes survivors for being glued on generators. Rewards the killer for downs, punishes survivor for ineffective looping.
Incapacitated is just not a status effect that should be hitting someone for that long. It's a lot to ask of a survivor to do nothing for thirty full seconds
why? dbd already balances around survivors doing nothing, inefficiency.
I'm not a game designer, there are probably a hundred things you could do with Eruption, most of them thematic to the Nemesis. My suggestion is to make it about controlling the trial via constantly being on a new survivor without having to search, which seems to be what the other two perks are designed to achieve too; Lethal Pursuer lets you start a chase immediately, and Hysteria seems... well, okay, I really don't know about Hysteria, that perk is weird.
As for your second statement, no it doesn't. I get what you're saying, that you think DBD is balanced around lower-skilled players and said players are inefficient, but that doesn't actually translate to the take you're trying to make here. But to take it at face value for a second, there's a big difference between choosing to do nothing (or more accurately, nothing productive ) and being forced to do nothing.
-
@Alcuin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3291884#Comment_3291884
It's not a "ragequit" if Blight is coming after you after being unhooked with Compound 33 and ignoring the unhooker. It's broken. I know it. Blight knows it. The chat of the Blight I was going against knows it. I am able to realize that "This is BS" in the moment. It's a cumulation/convergence of imbalanced things. If I can recognize it in the heat of the moment, it's really, really broken. Nowhere near a "ragequit".
It's sending a message. They get it or they don't. You want an easy match, I will make it easier than you want it. That's all you can do a solo in DBD.
You're missing the point. It's not about the killer, it's about your teammates.
We could talk about how broken Compound 33 Blight is, especially when tunnelling, but that's not the argument that I'm making. I'm talking about how you're screwing over your teammates much more than you're sending any message to the killer.
-
@Alcuin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3291862#Comment_3291862
Certain killers want a 4K and as easy as possible. If you want to tunnel, I will make it even easier. The streamer was talking about how he won every match over the course of five hours. Solo Survivors do not escape every trial over a 5-hour period. Who's not taking into consideration the experience of the other side?
I'm not talking about consideration of the other side, though?
I'm talking about consideration of your side. The survivors. Your three teammates who you just put in a much worse position by putting them in a 3v1 super early in the match. That is why you shouldn't ragequit whenever you see a killer tunnelling, because there are three other players who aren't being annoying to you that you are putting at a huge disadvantage by leaving.
-
It doesn't really matter what the killer's doing, DCing screws over your teammates. As you say, there are five people in a match, not just you and the killer.
Anti-tunnel could stand to be stronger, and Blight could stand to be weaker. Those statements are true at the same time that you DCing was a scummy move can be true, because you are not the only survivor in the trial.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/357687/my-take-on-how-to-change-eruption
eruption is specifically designed to be a perk to refund the time in kicking generators. Incapacitated is how the entire perk gains value.
When they changed scourge hook pain resonance, one of description of dev's opinion in regard to that perk was jack of trades perk. Eruption is now jack of all trades perk. It does everything. it has regression, incapacitated and tracking capacity from survivor's screaming. With how current version of how this perk functions, it is combined mini-pop goes weasel+mini dead man switch. I could heavily see dev's weakening the perk by removing the regression of the perk simply because pop goes weasel is supposedly meant to fill the role of a generator kicking perk that provides raw regression to generators while no other perk fills the role of applying incapacitated effect on survivors.
a possible change to the perk is removing the regression aspect of the perk from 10%->0%. Perhaps they might improve the incapacitated effect of the perk from 25 second->30 seconds and add a 5 second lingering effect upon leaving the generator to prevent clever survivors from avoiding the effect. The perk would be less of jack of all trade perk and more of specialized perk.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3291753#Comment_3291753
This change sounds like a change that punishes weaker killers who typically have longer chase times but keeps the perk exactly the same for stronger killer that end chases quickly.
That change would worsen the aspect of the perk that's actually causing problems, though. The Incapacitated is why we're having this conversation to begin with, because its application and length cause frustrating scenarios where only those on comms can respond effectively to it and those playing without comms are left to twist in the wind.
Completely separate from the design of Eruption specifically, Incapacitated is just not a status effect that should be hitting someone for that long. It's a lot to ask of a survivor to do nothing for thirty full seconds if they aren't playing on comms and can't avoid it. That's just not good design.
Someone above suggested replacing Incapacitated with just blocking the generator, and that would be more useful for a more healthy version of the perk's current niche. Personally, I think the perk should be given a different niche, but even if you like what Eruption is meant to achieve right now there are better and more healthily balanced ways of achieving it.
-
@RainehDaze said:
Entity blocking instead of incapacitation would be more in-keeping with what it does, and not turn its secondary effect into a really weirdly timed aura reveal--you down someone, then find out people are working on a generator half the map away? That's only of use for slugging.
Plus, this way it equalises solo queue and SWF in a different way: neither of them can dodge or immediately negate the regression, but it's not also an information perk (and it doesn't doubly punish solos with extra regression).
Entity blocking would also work, though that still kind of just leaves survivors hit by it with the singular option of "don't repair". Still, I suppose they could go find an unaffected generator, so that's still an improvement.
Personally, I think making it more of an information perk is more thematic to Nemesis and gives far more direct use than only stalling, but I'd be okay with entity blocking or even an entirely different effect. I just think the Incapacitated has to go in order for this perk to be balanced right- just making that timer shorter risks making it never run again, I'd like to see the troublesome part excised and replaced with something healthier.
-
@Mooks said:
Yes, Mandy commented on the forum feedback section missing:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3290768#Comment_3290768
and she actively asked for feedback on colors/contrasts etc as it’s something very subjective (and iirc she is colorblind herself)
Reasonable logic, and thank you for letting me know! Glad to see one of my two issues is already being considered, certainly.
-
I'd also say I think it's Huntress. Wraith does have the single worst killer perk in the game, since Predator actively harms you, but even that does have some use- and the other two are very weak but basically usable. Shadowborn is a nice QoL perk (albeit badly designed in that it shouldn't be a perk) and Bloodhound is just a nice perk to have, it's only really bad because it's overshadowed.
Huntress, on the other hand, has two borderline useless perks and one perk that's situational by virtue of it being a hex. Literally no killer can make Beast of Prey not useless, very few killers can make Territorial Imperative worth running, and while Lullaby is okay it's a hex and scales far too slowly for how weak its effect is. I think her perks are worse than Wraith's, overall.
-
Much deserved, though hopefully it's fixed soon. I was just trying to make use of it for the first time...
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3290525#Comment_3290525
I agree, but see how you instantly go to the most broken stuff on killer to make a point? That's a big issue, obviously some things do need a change I'm not against that but people are giving up and moaning about any little thing recently and that's just not on but it seems encouraged.
Iv never understood why people want fast games tbh but alot of the game issues are more on matchmaking or peoples own views.
For example people just give up because its legion and apparently that's okay because "hes not fun" when in reality its abit more mending for an easier basic attack killer to loop, but people see it okay to ruin everyone else's match when if everyone had that mindset of "this isnt fun give up" youd never get a game...
Matchmaking and a bad SBMM is a huge issue, the game is just too rng heavy with a bad system on top so it will be a disaster
If we're shifting to that people shouldn't give up because they find a killer unfun, that's a statement I'll wholeheartedly agree with, but it's not quite the argument that was being made initially.
Matchmaking can be an issue (though the SBMM we have is pretty standard), and people just being weirdly entitled to avoiding very specific matches/killers is definitely an issue. I think the confusion here is that you seem to be talking about endgame chats and in-game actions? Whereas I assumed you were talking about forum topics, which have a more even split between people complaining about things being unfun and people concerned with the balance of something.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3290491#Comment_3290491
Eruption can use tweak, more regression less incapacitated imo.
But the post isnt really about that it's more everyone moaning about nerfing everything instead of seeing the mistake they made personally or the mistakes their team makes.
I dont know if its lack of understanding or people are just blind to what they're actually saying
For example I can be in numerous games where people will moan about the killer, perks etc. And I'm just sitting there as their teammate like "no we lost because we wasnt on gens much, the meg was just walking around and feng couldn't loop at all" but I dont see how people overlook their mistakes and blame it on OP killer, addons, perks when we could have easily won if everyone played smart or at least tried to
Plus I'm seeing people give up basically every game no matter what just fed up of people moaning and ruining games because they cant accept they made mistakes and the killer just played better and is trying.
If survivors have weak links and inefficient player verse a killer who's trying with a strong build the killer should win. I dont enjoy losing because my teams bad, hell it annoys me but I dont want killers nerfed so it's easier because if I get even an okay team layer on itll be too easy
While I see what you're saying, I think it's a little premature to make a blanket statement like this. There are killers that are overtuned and there are definitely builds that are overtuned, so the complaints you see stand a pretty good chance of actually having a point.
If someone complains about losing to a Clown who just has two slowdowns and moderately useful addons, sure, that person should probably look towards their own play or their teammate's play, but if they're complaining about Alchemist's Ring Blight or Exposed-Aura Read Nurse, that's obviously a completely different issue where their complaints are on much firmer ground.
It's far too contextual to say people just flat shouldn't complain about killers and perks, I don't think there are enough examples of people who clearly are deflecting for this to be a valid approach.
-
I'm not sure I understand who this is aimed at, and by extension what complaints it's countering. I don't think most people even here are mad because they don't want to try and still want to win- occasionally I do see people who seem to be mad a perk or playstyle or addon makes them change what they're doing, but that tends to be killer players a little more, from what I've seen.
Is this about the Eruption posts? Because it is totally possible for perks to be overtuned, and even if it's not "carrying" to victory, it clearly fits into a troublesome place in the game's health considering the disparity between how well it works against solo versus how well it works about SWF. That's bad for everyone; killers get inconsistent value, solo players get more of a hit than SWF, and even SWF are pushed towards a kinda boring counterplay due to the way the perk's designed. There are many valid reasons to complain about Eruption that aren't "not wanting to try yet still wanting to win".
All that assuming you are talking about the Eruption posts, I'm not entirely sure.
-
I doubt it's the main reason, but it's totally possible they choose to slip those in alongside whatever routine maintenance they're doing.
-
That's a pretty big "if", I don't think the perk needs changing until there is a killer power that forces survivors into lockers. As it is right now it's honestly pretty weak, so it certainly doesn't need to be nerfed on the offchance that later on down the line it might become a problem, imo.
-
@HPhoenix said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3290324#Comment_3290324
I knew I forgot to put "Yearly around July"
But yea, yearly is also an option. I should had fully woke up before writing this poll xD.
I'd be pretty okay with a meta shakeup every year or so, even if it's smaller than 6.1 was.
One thing I would really like to see around midchapters is lesser-used perk overhauls, kinda like they're doing with the specific killer passes. Pick three or four perks, and revamp them in more detail than just a minor buff or tweak, to try and make them more appealing in the modern state of the game. They'd easily have a few patch's worth of contenders already.
-
If there were to be a regular meta-shift, I don't think that either of your proposed timeframes would really work. Maybe every year or so?
That's not to say that no changes should be made between the shakeups, but if you're talking about something like 6.1, that definitely shouldn't be happening with any real frequency.
-
@TheRockstarKnight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289560#Comment_3289560
The issue with Eyrie isn't one of size, but content.
Most traditional maps have a pretty sizable 'deadzone' area around the edges where there are no gens, no hooks, and no pallets.
Both Ormond and Eyrie can and will spawn generators, pallets, jungle gyms, and hooks very close to the edge of the map.
This means that a good gen patrol is pretty difficult, if not impossible, for most non-mobility Killers at the start of the match.
This makes people *feel* like the map is too big, even though it's the same size as other, less problematic maps.
It also can lead to Killer sided issues with pallet depletion and camping/tunnelling, but that depends on specific map RNG.
Certainly, I can see that. People are still wrong to act like it's monstrously big, though, so that's why I hesitate to accept someone saying the same of the newest map.
From what I've played, the new map might actually be pretty balanced once the pallet spawning bugs are fixed. I certainly hope so, anyway...
-
@squbax said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289435#Comment_3289435
Eyrie feels gigantic tho, like to me it feels like the biggest map, it may not be but it sure feels like.
It's not. It's the same size as Ormond, which iirc is about the average/medium size for a map.
-
Nice attempt, but no.
-
Is it actually that big? It didn't feel all that much larger than the average size for a map the few times I've played on it so far.
Ever since Eyrie of Crows I've learned to be a bit suspicious when people start saying a map is supposedly gigantic, lol.
-
It fits the description that you're giving to NOED, though it is worth noting that NOED itself doesn't fit that description even prior to 6.1. Even if you narrow NOED's three counters down to just cleansing all five totems before the last generator, even that doesn't actually require a SWF specifically if you bring Small Game. Add in the other two and you don't need coordination at all.
As for Eruption, that perk is destroyed by coordination and is slightly overtuned even against solo players, so a little shuffling of its effects is in order. I saw a great change idea a little while ago, where it affects everyone within a certain radius of the generator instead of just those working on it, but what it does is actually give them Hindered instead of Incapacitated for long enough to catch up and chase them. Something like that would be a good idea, focus more on the regression and have a nice bonus for anyone nearby, instead of having an effect powerful enough that solo players are hit way harder due to not being able to avoid it.
-
...Is this a copypasta? It reads like a copypasta.
-
@Rudjohns said:
I made this tweet "You receive: Removal of double lockers flashlight save (absurdly easy to counter). We receive: More consistent flashlight saves in general." and a bunch of killer mains were salty in my replies lmao
I imagine a bunch of them were just pointing out that double locker flashlight saves were, in fact, impossible to counter, lol.
As for the consistency of flashlight saves, they only got more consistent in timing, nothing else. They're still absurdly easy to avoid in the vast majority of scenarios, this change only made picking up the mechanic easier for new players, it's nothing to be mad at.
-
That Kindred bug is pretty rough, though from descriptions it looks like the important part - the survivor auras - still works? It's still a pretty bad bug, though, I hope it can be fixed ASAP.
-
So I'm on the same page, are you suggesting Surveillance get the exact same mechanic- that is, notifications on good skill checks? If so, I'd certainly agree with that, so long as it's still activated by kicking the generator and still has a timer.
Honestly, the increased regression speed on CoB is enough on its own, I think that perk would be incredibly viable if that's all it did. Changing its information to be much more minor would still leave it in a perfectly workable spot.
-
Unfortunately it doesn't seem like multiple zombies are on the table for the current state of the game, which is definitely a shame. As for the zombies having that despawn condition, honestly, I'm for it- either that, or have them force despawn if they've been in the same position for a certain amount of time, just something to help them if they get stuck...
Overall I do think the only thing that needs buffs is the zombie AI/behaviour. Nemesis himself is severely underrated, he's quite good.
@R1ch4rd_N1x0n said:
Yeah Nemesis def needs a buff. It's a terrible perk.
Gonna be real, this gag isn't getting any funnier.
-
Breaking a three-gen at the end of the match, or otherwise just taking care of the last generator quicker if you don't have a hugely decisive lead.
-
@Saitamfed said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286415#Comment_3286415
Oh, I see... that can lead to missunderstandings I guess.
Yep, it definitely threw me for a loop the first few times they did this.
@Unimatrix00 said:
Well, that's silly that they're giving rift fragments. Many people are already finished the rift and are awaiting the new one.
Not me, and not many other people. I'm quite happy for the rift fragments.
-
Today's reward was the Rift Fragments, and those don't have a little pop-up when you open the game, you just get given them. You can tell you got them if the progress ticks up the first time you check the Archives sidebar.
-
@RonMan32 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286135#Comment_3286135
They could do pretty much anything I mentioned in the chapter part of the concept as skins instead. A 3rd RE chapter is unlikely but we could totally get more legendary skins.
For sure, for sure. I actually wouldn't mind a third RE chapter, though I think it'd be more thematic if it focused on "modern" RE instead. Then you'd have "classic" RE with Nemesis, the midway point of RE with Wesker, and then something from 7/8 for the resurgence of the franchise.
Of course, I'd be happy with basically anything, I just love RE lol
-
Hmm, well, it seems like the best call is just to wait until the Guard is called? Since it disappears as soon as the unhook animation begins, that basically just puts the Knight at the disadvantage of not being able to run up and interrupt the unhook because he was standing still during the wisp mode pathing.
It also seems like a bit of an assumption that the Guard will actually get a hit, they're pretty easy to outrun most of the time.
-
@Mooks said:
I don’t really don’t wanna get another RE chapter - if new RE content then as cosmetics and legendary skins (like your Dr Salvador suggestion)
and if we still go another chapter I also see it more likely that it will be from 7 or 8..
also I want Moira as a surv - would probably best fit as a Rebecca skin!
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286070#Comment_3286070
Haven’t they even added a third person view for RE 8? Haven’t look into gameplay or anything at all but shouldn’t you be able to see the face that way anyways?
They did, but in the reveal trailer they made a big deal of showing how you can never see Ethan's face, he'll always turn away from you. There is no official way of seeing Ethan's face and Capcom are very explicit about doing that intentionally, for whatever reason.
To the wider topic, I'd love to see Ashley in the game. I'd been thinking about more RE content myself, though I was considering how cool a Donna Beneviento skin would be for Twins if they could get it to change Victor into Angie.
-
Picking this option, but honestly, Joker himself would be one of the worst picks. Now, if we were talking about Scarecrow, or Clayface, or maybe even Riddler, then we'd be getting somewhere!
And Harper Row as the associated survivor, please.