knell
knell
About
- Username
- knell
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,862
- Last Active
Comments
-
This was on PS4 yesterday. Seemed like the developers sacrificed any semblance of "ranking" for a faster lobby for people who had slow matchmaking before.
-
@Master said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/348087#Comment_348087
On PC the survivor queues are still acceptable, but from what ive heard from consoel players....
Given the asymmetrical nature of the game, I tend to agree that crossplay won't help much with the matchmaking of DBD.
For the sake of simplicity, let's say there are 1000 players total on PC, 100 of them who main killers on average, or 10%. (Ideally, you would have 200/1000, or 20% of the players being killer for the most efficient matchmaking, since each match consists of 5 people with 1 of them being the killer.)
Now let's take PS4, which seems to have the most complaints about long matchmakings and lack of killers. Again, for the sake of simplicity, we'll say there are 500 players total, and 0 of them who main killers on average or 0%.
We'll merge the population together, and have 1500 players total, with 100 of them maining killers on average, or 6.6%.
It would help the PS4 console players somewhat, but it would produce a longer waiting time for PC players on average. But the most important part is that it doesn't help with the lack of the killer population, which needs to be around 20% consistently.
Now this example doesn't take the DBD matchmaking algorithm into consideration, so depending on people's ranks and geographical location, certain people may be able to get faster matchmaking than others, but overall, it seems like the best way to fix the long matchmaking for DBD's overall health is get people to enjoy playing killers more, and increase their population on average.
-
"Additionally, if the survivors don't destroy the Hex, the 5th generator will be impossible to repair because it's blocked."
I could already see a killer standing over the hex totem for few hours (or until the survivors disconnect).
-
If Survivor A goes down into a dying state in front of a locker while Survivor B is hiding in it, and the killer tries to pick up Survivor A, will Survivor B be able to stun the killer/release Survivor A out of grasp using Head On?
If it does, seems like another perk that would give SWF an advantage over Solos due to communication and planning.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/346029#Comment_346029
@MhhBurgers I wouldn't mind if it was like BT where if you're unhooked in the killer's terror radius, then the perk will activate.
Although I like this idea, I would much rather it be 32m around the hook rather than the killer's terror radius so that killers like the Wraith and Pig won't be able to still stealth-tunnel the survivor, which seems to be the new point of this perk.
Also, if not-tunneling is the objective, I would also prefer if the new DS doesn't activate if the killer is in chase with another survivor for at least 10 seconds or so.
...why did they take away the preview button before posting the comment?
-
I wish the moderators close down threads like these. The only thing that the original post does is 1. badmouthing the players behind the game without even explaining why and 2. make exaggerated and untrue claims on what people who play survivors want from the game. It really serves no purpose other than to create more divisions and negative feelings about the game in general.
-
@powerbats said:
Yes destroy your game and then get n lobbies as since last data point was 34.% of lobbies were strictly solo players and the rest were some combination of swf usually duo's.If most of the playerbase is swf and you only queue up for solo guess what your lobby wait times are going to be insane because there isn't enough solo survivors.
Where are you getting that most of the playerbase is SWF?
Didn't the same exact stream where you got your '30% of the lobbies being strictly solo players' inform us that 47.2% of the players entered a lobby through SWF while 49.3% entered through Solo? That's about half and half. Or are you making the assumption that us solo players prefer being stuck with SWF also?
According to the same stream where you got your statistics, why would the solo be stuck with a longer wait time?
@powerbats said:
The solo's will get stuck with probably longer wait time or just a bunch of jerks so they'll either stop playing or go swf also.Are you saying that you don't enjoy playing Dead by Daylight as a solo? Personally I enjoy playing as it was meant to be played. Sure, I don't win often, and sometimes I have awful survivors that I have to try and cooperate with, but isn't that the fun part of Dead by Daylight? That unpredictability? That fear of the unknown? Not knowing who you can trust in a life and death situation? What part of playing survivor do you have fun in?
@powerbats said:
Now here's where logic just simply bites you in the arse, there's nothing stopping people from queueing as solo and simply inviting someone to voice.In fact it already happens in solo lobbies and on console it's super easy to do and apparently happens all the time.
If they made an appropriate solo mode, they would individualize the lobby so that killers will not be able to see the survivors and survivors will not be able to see the killer/other survivors. The only information they have will be that they are placed in a lobby, and nothing else. Once they are loaded onto a map, the survivors can be designated with a letter or number. How will they invite people then?
-
@EntityDispleased said:
Pig's blade extends through her sleeve so there may be more where that came from.What Amanda actually has under her robe.
-
@CotJocky said:
Huntress Pig with the sneaky hatchet through the wall! LUL....Now that I think about it, it may have been Amanda throwing her Reverse Bear Trap. It's probably a better use of her traps.
-
Many of you seem to feel that the new DS is a nerf for the early game, but buff in the end game, which I can't really disagree with.
Another aspect of the new DS is that it seems like an overall nerf for a single survivor, but an overall buff for a group of survivor working together. The shorter stun time means that on average, the single survivor should not be able to get to a window/pallet as often as before, and therefore the killer will be able to save some time if he/she is able to end the chase more quickly. But due to the fact that there will now be multiple "obsessions," it's more likely for the killer to be DSed more times - which means that there are more (shorter) chases that will need to be done, wasting more of the killer's time.
Of course, if the killer doesn't go after the recently-unhooked survivor for a whole minute, it shouldn't be a problem, but I imagine this will happen fairly frequently even if the killer is not purposely "tunneling," especially if the survivors are talking and coordinating with each other. And that's partly because Killers always will have more things to juggle with all at once and to keep in mind. For example, let's say you've just hooked a Meg, and has been chasing another Meg for ~20 seconds because she was at the generator next to the hook. You notice that the Meg has been unhooked, but manage to make the first hit on the Meg that you are currently chasing. After a bit, you see that there is another injured Meg bodyblocking to save the Meg-in-chase at a chokepoint, so you hit her instead and down her. So the questions that the Killer has to ask him/herself now is, "Is this the Meg that's been unhooked? Or a Meg that I injured and lost few chases ago? And if it is the recently unhooked Meg, does she have DS? If she does, has a minute passed by yet since she's been unhooked (and not the time that I've been in chase with another Meg)? If it hasn't, how many more seconds would I need to wait before picking her up, or will my time be better served keeping her slugged and finding a new Meg?
All of this while the 4 Megs are coordinating to maximize the efficiency on just finishing the generators.
In the end though, personally, I would just have to see it in play multiple times. These are all speculations, so it'll be much better to form an opinion once it's actually out.
-
@TAG said:
I think it's fair to say that if a crazed killer suddenly gets stabbed by a Survivor, they could become obsessed with killing them.Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't start being infatuated with someone else just because I got stabbed by them.
Psshh, kids these days and their 'commitment.'
-
@TrAiNwReCk said:
One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .
Brilliant.
Just for clarification, that quote is not my description of a win.
For details, please visit this thread:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/325748#Comment_325748 -
@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.
-
@fluffybunny said:
DbD isn't chest.I agree, DBD is not a chest.
@fluffybunny said:
I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.That's fine. If the way you play defines your winning condition, I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'm even fine if people want to treat DBD like a point salad game and define the victory condition in that way. The problem is when people are saying, "surviving is not the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." Who says?
And I agree with you - I prefer the playstyle of doing as much as I can as a survivor also. But that's just it; it's my personal preference. And there are times when I die as a survivor, getting ~15K points, and see that last survivor take the hatch and still has only ~10K points despite the hatch - does it annoy me? Yes. Do I try to make myself feel better by convincing myself that I won despite having been sacrificed? No, of course not. Because ultimately, the guy who hid all game took a gamble that 1. the rest of us will do a minimum of 2 generators without him, and that 2. he would be able to find the hatch before the killer. He could have died just like the rest of us - he didn't, so in my mind, he won, as much as I don't like that fact.
@Ryuhi said:
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.Let's make this clear - if you have your own definition of how to win in this game, I am absolutely okay with that. You enjoy your game the way you see fit. The problem I have is when others are saying, "No, surviving isn't the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." That not only goes against my enjoyment of the game - it also isn't what seems to be inferred from official sources - so yes, I do have a problem with that.
If you don't like chess, then let's compare it to another asymmetrical game - like Werewolf or Mafia - a social deduction game. If you are the lone werewolf, it doesn't matter how well you do and how many villagers with roles (Fortune Teller/Bodyguard/etc.) you devour during the night in a row - if the villagers manage to point you out the next morning (even if randomly selected), then the game is over. Again, the performance really isn't indicative of the winning condition. But like I said earlier, as so long as you aren't saying, "Surviving isn't the winning condition in DBD," I'm fine with it. Go have fun - just make sure you let me have mine too.
-
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.
When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
-
Separation of SWF Mode and Solo Mode
A. Give SWF their own mode. (Whether this is a specialized mode with new mechanics and win conditions or not is up to Behaviour). Vastly strengthen Killers in this mode to be comparable to SWF with shared information.
B. Change the new Solo Mode so that lobby is individualized - so in this new lobby, the killer can't see the survivors (or their usernames) and survivors can't see the killer or other survivors (or their usernames.) Stagnate the initiation of the load-in to the maps (though they will all arrive at the same time.) The UI for the survivors' names are replaced with numbers or letters.
C. To help shorten the waiting times for each mode, add something akin to the Daily Ritual, except it is added on an hourly basis, and only for the Side/Mode that is most lacking in players. For example, if not enough killers are playing in Solo Mode, the 'Hourly Ritual' will give extra bloodpoints for doing something as a Killer in the Solo Mode. The amount of bloodpoints will depend on how lacking it is in that moment for that Side/Mode - the more people that is needed, the more bloodpoint rewards will be.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
Because both killer and survivors in your rank are playing for kills/escapes and not the pip. PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord.
Huh. You may want to let the DBD game director know that... since as of Nov 2018, he seems to not be aware of that.
Per Twitchcon 2018 interview:
Cote: "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun? We play in those waters and that doesn’t lend itself very well to tournaments with very strict rules sports thing. " -
From what I've heard, the developers only accept reports written in Chinese characters. And on the subject line, in addition to the Chinese characters, please make sure to add an abbreviated letters of universities or colleges (usually American), although it does not matter which one.
-
Smell the flower, blow out the candle.
If you really like the concept of this game, and want to continue playing this game, I'd recommend starting with mostly Survivor's role.
As a Killer, if you don't make sacrifices, it's easy to feel bad since you are supposed to be playing the role of a big, bad wolf in this "horror game."
But as a survivor, even if you are sacrificed, you can tell yourself that you've just played a role of one of the many victims that are meant to be sacrificed/killed in a "horror game." And hopefully your sacrifice has helped another survivor live a bit longer for the time being in some manner or other. It's much easier to convince yourself that it's not a big deal that way.
-
Personally, after watching many youtubers during the PTB, I didn't find the "closing the hatch" mechanism very appealing. On every occasion, it seemed to lead to 1. Killer finding the hatch and closing it, 2. Survivor finding that the hatch has been closed, 3. Killer patrolling the remaining generators to see which ones have been worked on, 4. The Survivor, realizing that he isn't ever going to finish a generator before the Killer finishes his rotation, decides to just hide. 5. The game never ends.
Instead of closing the hatch, I personally prefer if all killer gains the ability to Tombstone Myers (with a longer reach) within ~16-24m of the open hatch. That should eradicate any hatch stand-off, which is the most annoying part about the hatch. Why would any killer have to just stare at the survivor staring back at them? Just kill them, for heaven's sake.
And in order to make sure the last survivor isn't just hiding, waiting for the hatch forever, give that survivor a 1-2 minute timer to either look for the hatch or work on a generator in a good location once he/she is the last survivor. You can extend the timer for each second of working on a generator, totem, or the gate. Once the timer runs out, give infinite aura reading to the killer.
As someone who often continues to finish the remaining generators to 99% and turning them on all at once whenever the killer is just camping the hatch, I feel like that would give me a bit more chance to survive, while at the same time not wasting the killer's time infinitely.
I would also say that maybe increase the number of generators that needs to be completed in order for the hatch to appear in the first place. So instead of just completing 2, make it 3. Part of the role of playing survivor is collaborating and working with each other up to a certain point. If survivors are at a point where we feel safe not even having to pretend to help out each other, then the game is failing us. I always wondered why the developers specifically picked that number of generators for the hatch mechanism to take effect. Why not 5? Why not 0?
-
This thread is very revealing, in that no one has even mentioned about how that particular killer may have felt during that game. The focus is mainly on just the SWF players themselves, despite the fact that in almost any game, your focus should always be on your opponent - what he/she has done, what he/she is about to do, what he/she is planning in the long run. But it seems like in many SWF games, killers' presence is typically ignored while SWF are having fun amongst themselves. It is as if they are playing a totally different game altogether. They are disengaged from the killer, though they are supposedly playing the same game.
So of course many SWF are often defeated. Because they don't care. They might as well as be playing an actual different game - their social interactions with each other is much more important than the match itself, or even the game. They are not invested in the gameplay. Ultimately, they are not playing to win against their opponent. And of course, they don't care whether the killer is wanting a good, serious match against them. "Good game" doesn't exist for them, just "good times" with each other.
If it were me playing the killer, where it is made obvious that the survivors aren't even trying and making intentional bad plays in order to "have fun," well, even if I had gotten a 3K or 4K, that would have been a very unfun match for me. Because I want a fair match where both me and my opponent are putting 100% into the game itself, and seeing which one of us emerge victorious. To me, that's how you have fun in games.
But therein lies the problem. People keep blaming the SWF players, but the SWF players themselves aren't the issue. After all, what can they do? They can put 100% of their knowledge, experience, and ability (including voice communication) to win a match - and they mostly certainly will win. Killers complain. On the other hand, they can go completely easy on the killers by just screwing around with each other so that there is at least some illusion of "balance" - but again, that's not what is desired by most killers even if they end up winning because no one likes to be toyed around with. The SWF players are caught between a rock and a hard place because no matter what option they choose, the inclusion of SWF into the core gameplay breaks the balance so badly that the killer cannot get a serious, fair match.
The blame lies strictly on Behaviour developers for jamming SWF into the core gameplay when it was mainly balanced for 4 sole survivors to go against the killer, instead of creating a separate SWF Mode where a stronger version of killer can be made for that particular mode.
-
George_Soros invites a friend over for dinner and to play a game
George_Soros: "Before we eat, do you want to play The George_Soros Chess?"
Friend: "Sure, sounds fun. How is it different from normal chess?"
George_Soros: "It's almost exactly the same, except I get ten moves each turn to your one move per turn."
Friend: "...errrr, that doesn't sound very... fair."
George_Soros: "Nothing is "fair", that's an artificial concept."
Friend: "...well, on second thought, do you want to play something else?"
George_Soros: (sighs) "Fine. Let's play The George_Soros Russian Roulette."
Friend: "I don't... wait, does it at least give me a fair chance?"
George_Soros: "WHAT DID I JUST SAY? THERE'S NEVER A 'FAIR CHANCE!' A LOT DEPENDS ON LUCK! YOU GOTTA WIN! IF YOU LOSE, YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF (possibly in a coma) 'WHAT CAN I DO TO DO BETTER NEXT TIME!' OR YOU CAN CRY "UNFAIR" BUT NO ONE GIVES A #########, AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE?? NOTHING IS 'FAIR!!' IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL CONCEPT!" (cocks gun)
Friend: "I... don't think I want to play it."
George _Soros: "The George-Soros Russian Roulette rule says YOU HAVE NO CHOICE." -
@twistedmonkey said:
I am saying they are currently changing the matchmaking, all survivors and killer will load into a pre lobby and get matched up and every 30 second they will join the lobby we have now so all survivors will join at once eaxh and every game, some players dodged when that happens currently as it was a way to tell if they were swf, so they are with this new system removing that option.That's the point they shouldn't be allowed they should play the game as it is and stop cherry picking games, with what I said above it seems the devs are already taking a step towards making that happen.
The proof regarding the bugs is there for you to read yourself on this very forum, it is the reason they state they are changing the matchmaking, it just so happens that it also removed the killers way of all joining at once to dodge for swf, while that could be coincidental it seems logical with the lobby dodging problem it could also be an intended feature.
With the emblem system camping can in fact be game breaking as it removes you from being able to get an emblem, doing gens and getting out punishes it but it also means you may not pip.
Lobby dodging may not be bannable but do you honestly think they like it happening? As I already stated the new system will remove a way to tell if its SWF coincidental or not it's changing, they could easily add an swf indicator but you know they won't and for good reason.
Of cours eit hold merit, any designer knows what tools are available, they chose to add swf knowing the tools to communicate were out there, do you honestly think it was never brought up in conversation when they were discussing it? The game is a coop multiplayer no matter the original concept it changed from the business point of view, it is and always will be part if the game, nothing will ever change that, the fact that the stats show killer over 55% win rate also tells the devs it's not as unbalanced as the complainers say, it is impossible to balance swf and solo, they need to nerf swf imo how they do I don't know but buffing solo isn't working, that doesn't mean I will agree t9 people cherry picking games as I beleive for one it helps to gives the devs the above false stats when only the best killers will decide not to dodge.
Think about it they added the option to play with friends, the dodging is being complained about constantly and they are now changing matchmaking due to it being buggy while coincidently also removing a way to tell if the lobby has swf, I personally think that tells you how they perceive dodging.
Given how you continued to: 1. express concern for people who have to wait for a lobby, but refused to have the same empathy for people being forced into unbalanced games, despite the fact that I drew the correlation multiple, multiple times over the last few posts, 2. started using phrases like "could also be an intended feature" to use speculations as a part of your argument, 3. call camping "game breaking," 4. state things like, "the devs frequently change their mind" two posts ago, but turn around and say, "it is and always will be part if the game, nothing will ever change that" just to fit your current argument, and 5. have a long sentence about the "impossibility" of balancing SWF and solo when all it would take is creating a new mode for it,
I'm concluding that you have absolutely no interest in holding a conversation, listening to what I am saying, or sharing an interest about balancing the game for the better. Good luck in your life.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
Yes they hid the and game perks which needed done and has been asked for while at the same time making a lobby system where you won't be able to tell if its an see who joins, who knows jot seeing survivor profile could be next, will you then complain? Leave the game?I... don't understand what you are trying to say here.
@twistedmonkey said:
While I agree with what you say about swf being unbalanced logically the nurse can also be said to be unbalanced as she negates the core mechanics of the game, any aura perk can be unbalanced as they negate stealth, any perk which rewards failure to do the objective before the end game could be stated as unbalanced, gen time can be said to be unbalanced but with all of these the stats show balance over the user base, the point isn't simply because something is unbalanced it's the fact of cherry picking what you want play versus due to it, that is wrong imo.All of these examples you gave are opinions, unlike the SWF/Solo/Killer balance issue, which can be logically proven. In addition, when we are talking about core game design, as I stated earlier, things are either in balance, or not in balance. Although people may debate over what balance specifically means, there's no such thing as "can be unbalanced" (unless you are speaking of on individual basis, like you seemed to be doing.) I've provided the difference between the reason why the voice chat is imbalanced, and the types of things you believe to be imbalanced.
@twistedmonkey said:
Again while I agree it still doesn't give anyone the right to make the decision of making people wait for a game for playing within the rules, the devs frequently change their mind, at one point they said looping was an exploit and now it's a mechinc, camping is a legit strat but they are trying to get killers to leave the hook etc.So let the developers change their minds. Let them change their minds about killers choosing specific lobbies. Let them change their minds about voice chat. Either way, as it stands right now, just as people are allowed to take advantage of voice chat, people are being allowed to choose their own lobbies. Nothing more to say.
@twistedmonkey said:
Players can sit in a lobby due to matchmaking bugs not simple the user base, the figures show it has grown, it wasn't long ago it was killer taking longer and is one of the reason they are changing the match making as it bugs out, abusing is the word as it exactly what the survivors did to get the killers profile removed from the lobby, you are using an in game system to cherry pick games as you deem them not worth your time, again if everyone had the right to do this for what they consider imbalanced within the game what would be left? If you beleive the survivors were wrong to dodge campers, certain killers etc but think it's ok to do this then that is an entitled viewpoint.Sure, if you want to gently sway this conversation into "problems with matchmaking" and "matchmaking bugs" instead of "lack of killers," that's perfectly fine. Of course, there's no proof of it currently, but sure. If the 15 minutes of waiting for survivors are due to matchmaking bugs, then guess what, you should be telling the developers to fix the matchmaking bug, instead of continually blaming killers for wanting a more fair game, which, like we agreed earlier, is allowed since the developers have not taken any actions against it, according to your logic.
Again, survivors dodging campers why? Camping is not inherently game breaking, unlike Voice Comm, for its overall balance. We've already established the difference between why something is logically imbalanced and something is imbalanced due to "people's opinions." If you are determined to continue this route, I'm going to assume that you are simply trolling.
@twistedmonkey said:
The players using comes are doing so within the rules of the game, the devs have never stated it's against the rules, it's not bannable,Again, killers searching for more fair games are doing so within the rules of the game, the devs have never stated it's against the rules, it's not bannable.
@twistedmonkey said:
it's common in every game to use comms when playing with friends so are they really using something out of the ordinary? The fact still remains that doing something about it is in the hands of the devs and it seems they are with the new matchmaking system, who knows it's being made to fix bugs but the fact it also makes everyone every game join at once hides a way of detecting swf without them having to spell it out seem very coincidental dont you think?Your argument "because open communication is common in all the other games, it is essential that it is provided in this game also" holds no merit. Part of designing games is figuring out what sets it apart from all the other games. The game designer must come up with its own rules for its own game. If 'hidden information' is a critical part of game design, then figure out a way to enforce it. Otherwise, don't make it part of game design in the first place.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean you shouldLook. These are your words. Now tell me, knowing that sharing of information impacts heavily on this game that revolves around hidden information, do you think that just because voice chat CAN be done, it should be used? After 2 years, the developers finally did something that they should have done from the very beginning, which is to hide the end-screen informations for killers, what does that tell you?
@twistedmonkey said:
How can you say some think the nurse to be imbalanced and it do the rid or isnt but then say some think swf is the same way, That statement contradicts itself by an either is or isn't scenario, that means it comes down to personal opinion only, some killer mains don't think swf is imbalanced and enjoy playing versus it.Again, it doesn't matter that some individual killers think that SWF is balanced or not. It's not a matter of personal opinion. It's purely logic. Is the killer balanced for solo survivors? Then SWF with voice coms, who has everything that solo survivors have but with vast amount of shared information, is overpowered. Is the killer balanced for SWF survivors? Then solo survivors, who lacks all the extra shared information, are underpowered. Is the killer balanced for average between the two? Then on average, the SWF is still overpowered, and solo survivors are underpowered. This isn't an opinion. It's a fact.
@twistedmonkey said:
but don't abuse something it wasn't designed forAgain, these are your words. This game wasn't designed for Voice Chat. "It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends. (Cote)" Also: "That being said, however, this is a game where we tried to have this horror atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there's no spoken dialogue in the game, it's very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding of drums when you are about to die. And that's all intentional. It really builds up the feeling of the game (McLean)." These quotes are both from the end of 2018. In the end, the developers decided to condone it because they don't want to bother or can't figure how to remove it. But it wasn't designed for it - it's not part of the core mechanic that makes DBD what it is. In fact, it completely destroyed the balance of this game - we all know that.
@twistedmonkey said:
I am not sugar coating anything as I speak up about swf needing nerfs but you are using it as an excuse to justify abusing something which is infact wrong, each player bought the game to play, as long as it is within the games rules its fair, do you think it's right for someone to sit in a lobby for 15 mins and then be dodged for simply using what is allowed?If someone is sitting in a lobby for 15 minutes, then that means we just need more killers. You said earlier that this game has grown. Then tell me exactly why someone would be sitting in the lobby for 15 minutes? The population may have grown, but the less appealing part of this game has not. That's the main problem. But it's easier to just blame the people desperately trying to find a more fair game, isn't it? You keep using the word "abusing" to describe what killers are doing to get a more fair game. What word would you use to describe player who knowingly use applications that they know breaks the game, but still use it because they know that the developers can't do anything to stop them?
-
@twistedmonkey said:
That's just trying to justify the reason for doing it, anything that is accepted by the devs is fair game.And that just goes back to saying that killer choosing lobbies 'is a fair game' because it's accepted by the devs.
@twistedmonkey said:
You are saying because something is unbalanced you have the right to dodge, you know some perks are unbalanced on both sides should these then be shown so each side can cherry pick what they wish to play agaisnt?The Nurse can be unbalanced to some players should they have the right to dodge all Nurse players?
No matter how you try to sugar coat it it is abusing the system just like the survivors did so it was rightly taken away, just like those who derank and dc should be dealt with better also, abusing something because you feel it shouldn't be in the game is all you are doing nothing else, you are just as bad as those survivors in the past.
What do you mean, The Nurse 'can be imbalanced to some players?' The Nurse is either imbalanced for this game, or it's not. Just like Voice Chat isn't just 'imbalanced for some players.' The problem is that voice chat breaks the balance for the whole game where solo/killers/SWF all have different standards. The question isn't whether an aspect of the game is unfair to each individual player - it's whether it imbalances the way this entire game is played - whether or not it breaks the core gameplay. If it is, then it should either be removed, or avoided.
It seems like you're the one sugarcoating the impact SWF/Voice Chat has on the game as a whole. By your logic, if players are abusing Voice Chat on SWF because the developers are helpless to stop it, perhaps they should remove it from the core gameplay and put it somewhere else.
At this point, I feel like we are talking in circles. Unless you have something new to add, I probably won't be responding.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
So why not allow survivors to dodge lobbies for what they think is unfair?They allowed survivors to dodge lobbies but removed it as killer complained, now survivors are being dodged does that not constitute exactly the same scenario?
The lobby scenario to see survivors is so you can setup not to cherry pick but if you want that option removed by all means justify the behaviour.
It's just being hypocritical accept the game for what it is or it simply being petty about something you don't agree with nothing more.
Like I said, when killers close down lobbies, it's to correct the imbalance of SWF and Voice Chat. Why would the survivors need to dodge certain killers? What game imbalance are they correcting?
-
@twistedmonkey said:
All these replies just prove my point, dodging for anything that is accepted is just because you think it's unfair and not fun.The devs accept voice chat, the devs could easily disable swf if they believe it is not meant to work that way, the devs willl not as playing with friends and voice chat go hand in hand and it would impact sales, that's the bottom line it IS part of the game third party program or not.
You want to keep cherry picking games and try to justify it nothing else, yes swf is unbalanced but it's a game and everything in it accepted should be fair game, the devs need to sort it it is not on the players to decide that and to think otherwise is just using an excuse to fit your narative.
I don't understand how you keep saying that 'voice chat' is part of the game, but 'killers choosing their own lobbies' isn't. Just as the devs forced SWF into the core game despite knowing it can be abused by voice chat, they also implemented a feature which allows killer to choose their own lobbies despite the fact that it can be used to cherry-pick. What's the problem? If you are arguing that one is 'part of the game,' so is the other.
Do you know what the true difference between SWF's 'voice chat' and killer's 'choosing his/her own lobby' is? Voice chat breaks the balance of the game, while killer choosing their own lobby attempts to correct that imbalance.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
No dev will think a multiplayer game where friends play together will not use comms, to think otherwise is being in denial, if they underestimated it's impact then that's on the devs so why punish the players using it?If the developers, for some ungodly reason, underestimated the impact of sharing information on a game that heavily relies on hidden information, then that's on the devs, right? Why punish the killers by forcing them into it when they have a way of avoiding it?
-
It would be kind of be nice to have a week long DBD event where community managers and moderators visit the "Bug Reports" forum, "Forum Feedback" forum, and "Technical Issues" forum and give replies to as many unanswered questions as possible. They would each get 200-300 Shards for every reply, anything from, "Thanks for letting us know - we'll inform the developers in the next meeting," and "We're already aware of this issue!" to "That's working as intended!" And if the bugs actually gets fixed during the event, they would get special cosmetics, such as a Superman cape on Dwight and a Hatchet shaped like a Rubik's Cube for The Huntress.
All joking aside, I wish moderators are a bit more active in those forums to assure the forum participants that issues are being looked into. Thanks!
-
@mintchapstick said:
@Nikkiwhat said:
" like they're sackless"What a very typical male thing to say rolls eyes Not everyone who plays has a sack sweetheart, but please flex that machismo more here, 💋
Dude, you gotta stop with the emojis and the sweethearts and purposely taking colloquialisms at face value. One female gamer to another: you're making us look terrible right now & you're personifying all the bad ######### guys say about us. Stop taking us back like ten steps because you want to be condescending.
@PiiFree said:
Lobby dodging is the result of many bad experiences.You should've thought about such consequences before you bullied those poor Killers.
This is true though, I know someone called it as being bullshit, but it's honestly why I sometimes get into a loop of lobby dodging. Sometimes I'll see a bright haired Nea, or a beautiful, flowing haired, scarf-wearing Jake, and I'll dodge because I can't help but remember all the bright haired Neas before her that did me wrong.
Also flashlights. I get like killer main PTSD when I see them in my lobby. Like, 'I can't do this... not again.' Then when I talk myself into flashlights or bright haired Neas not being that bad, I load into the game and there's a bright haired Nea flashlight clicking and teabagging after dropping a pallet.
Actually, even though I don't like how she had been talking down to some people, I really appreciated how she had just addressed the toxic masculinity that often seems to permeate the DBD forums. It's not just the "sackless" comment, but also rampant comments like, "grow some balls" "stop being a [female dog]" "don't be a bunch of [female body parts]." They're indeed colloqualism, but ones that come from a long history of sexism. By attempting to control people's behavior by continually emasculating them, they're also normalizing that idea that "being a man" is better than "being a woman" or "being like a woman." It's just not necessary, and it is a pathetic effort to curve human behavior that doesn't even work most of the time. Instead, the only thing it does do is continuing to normalize that sort of language and in extension, the idea.
I do sympathize with the other part of your post though. Hopefully you'll face more opponents with some human decency that would offset some of your fears.
-
@NoShinyPony said:
@knell
You worded that very well.
Are you by any chance playing on PS4?I am.
-
I used to play killer/survivor more equally, but these days I mainly just play survivor, unless there's a specific reason to play a killer - such as a wait time for survivor taking longer than 5 minutes. So yeah, it's probably 10%-20% of killer gameplays.
Even the dailies aren't really enough to get me to play killers much anymore. (Granted, I don't actually play much of either side.)
As a killer, having something so imbalanced like SWF makes the killer gameplay not an enjoyable experience, even if you are able to get 4K. Even if you end up sacrificing all of the survivors, you know that the only reason was because they were screwing around and not taking the game seriously. It's almost never about your own skill, but more about how badly they were playing.
It's just easier to play survivor overall, and as a solo survivor, you know that you are giving the killer (and yourself) more of a fair gameplay - preventing a 4-stack from entering the lobby. Of course, it still doesn't prevent 2-man or 3-man, but at least it's a comfort in my mind that I'm contributing to a game that's more balanced than it could have been, no matter the outcome.
-
Schrödinger's Hatch.
-
@Nickenzie said:
It's not that big of deal when your opponent has an extra pawn but it can mean the difference in getting absolutely destroyed or not in a few scenarios.It seems like you are attempting to downplay the imbalance of SWF by using phrases like "It's not that big of deal" and "slight advantage." For many of us, this game is about time management/efficiency mostly affected by the mechanics of hidden information/movement. "Should I go save that person now, or should I try to finish this generator and hope that at least one other person is on save standby? Will that person suicide if he/she feels that no one is coming for him? Or will all three of us end up waiting near the hook while no one does the generators?" "How many people are looking for the Ruin Hex Totem - should I at least try to power through my generator - but if everyone is powering through them, then it may actually slow us down by the endgame if none of us are hitting the skillchecks." "How many totems have been cleaned? Should I try to prevent NOED at this point?" "Will the time I spend on healing make up for a longer chase later on? Or is there someone who's better at a chase that can take on that role for me while I focus on the generators while remaining injured?" "I'm apparently the Dying Light obsession - will the other survivors be ok if I play it more safe than usual?" "Now that I've been chased away from my generator, will someone find it since I finished it up to 90%? Or will they start from scratch on the remaining generators?" "Do all the other survivors realize that the killer is going for a 3-gen strat, and that is why I'm keeping this one at 99%? Or will they end up finishing it?" "Which area of the map have the other survivors not used up the pallets so I can prolong this chase?" In a game where each second counts, and sharing information can shave off perhaps minutes by the end, to us, it isn't just a "slight advantage." It changes the entire way this game is played.
Of course, not many SWF may play that strategically. After all, that would just guarantee their victory, and what's the fun in that, right? So they'll intentionally distract themselves from the game by discussing things that are completely unrelated to this game. They have to intentionally NOT focus on the game to have a good game. Instead of playing optimally and giving their 100% to the game, they'll just screw around with each other, "having a good time."
And as a killer, you may win because of that. You may win many times against these kinds of opponents. Would you, as a killer, be satisfied with these victories? For me, personally, if my opponent isn't giving their all, as I do, then it's just a simple hollow victory. On the other hand, if SWF is making 100% good use of the extra shared information, then what are my chance of winning in the first place? We all know, and that's why we keep spouting the same "Only a small number of SWF even plays like that" idea. So for me, it's usually a lose/lose situation, even when I usually win. I don't enjoy my victories as the killer because it usually feels like I was the only one that wanted to actually win.
@Nickenzie said:
Same exact thing with SWF, they have a slight advantage but when you let their advantage build up on you...Ok, so how do you keep a very efficient and strong SWF from building up their advantage?
@Nickenzie said:
However, au contraire, SWF is absolutely broken at times because you cannot prevent the advantage build up so you're forced to fight a losing battle. The only way that I can solve this is by either removing SWF although which is unlikely to happen or have separate queues. There is no other way.Something we agree on.
-
@Nickenzie said:
SWF is an unbalanced mechanic, I'll agree but unbalanced doesn't mean impossible. You can still destroy SWF squads, especially the altruistic ones for sure.I'm going to use an allegory to explain to you how the SWF situation feels like to me. Let's say, for example, you are about to play several games of chess with few different groups of people, one after another. However, in most of those games, your opponent will have an extra Queen to start out with.
Is it impossible to win against them? No, of course not. It's not balanced, but depending on your opponent, it's certainly possible to win. In fact, you end up winning most of these games because your opponents a.) are not focused on the game at all, and instead talking and laughing with their friends on their phones about what they did that day at school/work while playing against you b.) have never played a game of chess before, and is depending on someone on the phone to talk them through it, c.) seems to be intentionally making bad, yet provocative moves just because it seems "more fun" that way to him/her.
But occasionally, you will face someone who is at your same skill level, and are focused and determined to win against you. And they do win against you, using his/her extra Queen to the maximum ability.
So because I can win most of these games, I should convince myself that I should enjoy playing this type of chess? I should force myself to believe that playing against these types of people in these types of setting is enjoyable for me because "it's challenging myself?" Is that what you would say?
I just consistently want fair games where both my opponent and I are both on a similar playing field, both focused only on the game, and both doing our best of our abilities to create a good game for both of us. But perhaps that's asking too much from Dead by Daylight.
-
Just a clarification - as I stated earlier, the exact phrase McLean used was, "The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended." The problem for many of us, as we have expressed repeatedly, was the fact that unlike the KYF mode, they never created a SWF mode - instead they forcefully jammed it into the core gameplay, not only completely upsetting the game balance, but also destroying the thematic intensity that made the game what it is for many of us. Because in the same stream, McLean had clarified exactly what builds up the feeling of this game: "this is a game where we tried to have this horror atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there's no spoken dialogue in the game, it's very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding of drums when you are about to die. And that's all intentional. It really builds up the feeling of the game."
As to why they decided to add it, this was what Horvath said in that stream: "Dark Souls and Bloodbourne have tried this, and we've always gotten around voice chat, whether just talking on the phone with my buddy. You can get around anything." and then McLean: "So was the game balanced for it originally? I don't know if I would say it was or wasn't, really... even if it is NOT the 'intended' way to play, we just got to acknowledge that that's how some people do." Ultimately, what they are saying is this: They, the developers, felt powerless to stop people from taking advantage of how the game should be played, so instead they are condoning it. SWF didn't have anything to do with the core idea behind the game, nor is it integral to its gameplay mechanics - they are legitimizing it because they don't want to / can't do anything about it.
Now let me ask what I asked earlier: If makers of Scrabble or Words with Friends can't stop people from using anagram decoder/generator apps, should they legitimize its usage, knowing that it breaks the whole idea of playing Scrabble/Words with Friends, in which you are expected to use the information that is already in your head, and not relying on some outside source/ third party program? And if you think they should, would that even be the same game?
-
weirdkid5 said:
The lack of information was a SELLING point for this game to me. That I was on my own, with my own wits to beat the Killer, with only the possibility of my fellows helping me, and an even greater chance they would be my downfall. This was RIVETING and is one of the best experiences gaming as to offer. It is the entire reason I fell in love with this game.
Same here. Which is why the performance of other solo survivors has never bugged me much, even if it meant a 4K for the killer. In many horror movies, aspect of fear usually is not just centered around the monster alone. It often revolves around the victims all having different temperaments and different motives. Some are cowards that would betray you at the most critical moment. Some are well-intentioned, but are clumsy and will drag you down at the most inopportune time. Some likes to play the hero without knowing what he/she is up against. Some are just unlucky and have missed connections and interpretations of the events. These imperfect personalities are all part of the horror genre. I mean, what real horror fan would want to watch a bunch of perfect people overcome a monster with ease without any sacrifices, right? It's horror because it feels like a miracle to have survived in the first place. And that is what this game is based on.
I've quoted these before, but I'll do it again since it's important.
The game is supposed to be "an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends." (McCote on 11/12/18) and "a game where we tried to have this horror atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there's no spoken dialogue in the game, it's very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding of drums when you are about to die. And that's all intentional. It really builds up the feeling of the game." (McLean on 10/26/18)
The only reason why they had the intention of adding SWF Mode from the beginning was because "2018 now. We are not going to tell people you can't talk to your friends while you play a videogame." (McLean on 10/26/18). It never had anything to do with the core idea behind the game, nor was it integral to its mechanics. It was actually the opposite (breaking the balance of the game), but they added it in because "all multiplayer games do it." It is like if the makers of Scrabble or Words With Friends legitimized anagram decoders because they can't tell people not to google or download a third party anagram decoding app. Sure, there is no way to stop it, but it also breaks the whole idea behind Scrabble, where you are expected to use the information that is already in your head, not some outside source.
And note that McLean had said "The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends MODE were always intended." (McLean on 10/26/18) Notice that a swf MODE was never added. Instead, they forcefully jammed SWF into the core experience and ruined the balance of the gameplay. That is what bothers me the most. If people wants to play as overpowered 'Super Power Rangers with Telepathic Abilities' vs overpowered 'Super Mecha Godzilla on Steroids', that's fine. Just play it in another mode, and keep the core experience and the core feeling of the gameplay separate in the original mode.
-
Edit: Apparently a double post.
-
It's true that for some reason, solo survivor is taking a little longer than usual these few weeks - sometimes even five minutes or so on the PS4, US region. I don't get lobby-dodged often, and even if I do, I don't mind it because I'm selective about SWF lobbies too. I would rather play a game as the game was originally intended and balanced around. The game is supposed to be "an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends." (McCote) and "a game where we tried to have this horror atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there's no spoken dialogue in the game, it's very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding of drums when you are about to die. And that's all intentional. It really builds up the feeling of the game." (McLean)
The only reason why they had the intention of adding SWF from the beginning was because "2018 now. We are not going to tell people you can't talk to your friends while you play a videogame." (McLean). It never had anything to do with the core idea behind the game, nor was it integral to its mechanics. It was actually the opposite (breaking the balance of the game), but they added it in because "all multiplayer games do it." It is like if the makers of Scrabble or Words With Friends legitimized anagram decoders because they can't tell people not to google or download a third party anagram decoding app. Sure, there is no way to stop it, but it also breaks the whole idea behind Scrabble, where you are expected to use the information that is already in your head, not some outside source.
So don't tell people not to play the game when all many people are doing is wanting to play a game that is similar to what McCote and McLean had stated above. If anything, people who are ruining the feeling and intention of the core gameplay, maybe they are the ones that should stop playing.
If you are tired of waiting as a survivor, go play killer. And when some event starts and everybody is playing killer, then go play survivor. That's what I do. (Granted, apparently I seem to be waiting for a much shorter duration than many of you as both survivor and killer, but the suggestion still applies.) The time spent on these forums can be spent on playing as the side that is more currently needed.
-
It's kind of sad the world we are continuing to create.
When people are targeted for who they are, whether it's race, sex, or sexuality, people are often told to "just get tougher." When children are bullied, we blame the same children for "not standing up for themselves." When women are harassed, we blame these women for "not dressing appropriately" or "not fighting back." We continue to protect the bullies, harassers and rapists, racists and bigots, and instead blame the victims for "being weak" or "sensitive."
"If you are [physically, mentally, emotionally] strong like me, then this wouldn't be happening to you," they say. So we've come to live in a world where ones doing the offensive actions don't have to ever take responsibility for what they do or say. And we'll continue to live in a world in which people will tell others to just get tougher like them, with much, much less emphasis on being kind and empathetic to others. Because being a decent human being apparently doesn't account for much in a world where all we care about is being strong and tough.
-
well, at least we now know which DBD character is most likely to spam the forum.
-
Edit 1/12/19 Updated with The Legion and Jeff Johansen.
For both Jeff and The Legion's quotes, I went with metal/hard rock band references, given the Metal theme we were given for the chapter. For Legion, I also made sure they were all 1990's or earlier, since that seems to be around the time they were taken by The Entity. For Frank and Julie, I focused on the "Group" aspect of The Legion, while Julie and Joey were given the "Deception" aspect, though that was not implemented in the actual gameplay.
Jeff Johansen:
"Please don't kill me now, In a House of Guilty Hate, We go around in circles, Retaliate, Ignore the Pain, Ignore the Terror, We saw the tears lost in their eyes." -You Know What You Are, MinistryFrank Morrison - The Legion:
"...when we have nothing left to lose, You will have nothing left to use, We owe you nothing, you have no control." - Merchandise, FugaziJulie - The Legion:
"You and Me, We're in this together now, None of them can stop us now, We will make it through somehow, You and Me." -We're In This Together, Nine Inch nailsJoey - The Legion:
"But you never bothered to wonder why things are going so well, You want to know why? 'Cause I'm a liar, yeah I'm a liar, I'll tear your mind out, I'll burn your soul." -Liar, Rollins BandSusie - The Legion:
"Well means, it works I'm on your side, I said that? Well so, I lied." -Milquetoast, Helmet -
I hate it when people equate excessive altruism with Survive with Friends. SWF doesn't have to be (and often aren't) altruistic. In fact, if they even have a bit of intellect and self-control, they would be able to assess the situation better than any solo, and make good determination of if/when to make a save, as well as how many people is getting off the generators to do that. After all, they have much more information than the game itself provides for them.
As a killer, counting on your opponent to be stupid and unable to control themselves doesn't make for a fun game even if you kill them all.
-
My personal definition of a balanced game for DBD:
At the highest level of gameplay, a match with 4 survivors and a killer (no DCs), all doing their best to fulfill their objectives (no farming, no screwing around, and utilizing known information to the best of their ability for sacrificing/escaping) an average of 2 killed/2 escape ratio.
Both survivors and all killers having a similar skill cap both at the high end and low end.
Solo survivors and SWF either a.) having the capability of having the exact same amount of information in any given game, (in which a performance of SWF will affect Solo only as much as Solo can affect the SWF) or b.) being separated into two different modes, with the killers having reasonable buffs in the 'SWF only' mode.
As someone who only plays solo survivor and killers, my experience is that the game with 4 solo survivors is in a pretty good place.
-
@SmoothieKnight said:
YOU CANT TAKE HIS LEGS. HES BROTHER TO BAYONETTA YOU FOOL.**If Wraith can't have a baggy jeans nerf, then I'm also willing to take a Bayonetta-styled high heel buff on the Wraith. Wraith easily stepping over crouched survivors with high heels is an acceptable compromise. Either will be good for game balance.
-
Wow. This place.
-
That's weird. Why is there a ruin skill check when no one is working on that generator?
-
@Supernaut said:
Didn't everyone campaign for this a while back?...well, at least now we know what this new killer was really based on. Too bad they couldn't get the licensing to work out though.
-
"The Plastic Butter Knife"