oxygen
oxygen
About
- Username
- oxygen
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,170
- Last Active
Comments
-
The endgame change was fine, the stun nerf was ... weird. I get they probably wanted people to swap it for OTR but still.
At the absolute very least make the stun itself actually 3 seconds. You lose what, over an entire second of that time with no chance to make distance as you're locked in the "getting off the killer's shoulder" animation, and that is a much bigger fraction of the advertised time compared to when the advertised time is 5 seconds.
-
Yes, some people will pick anything out of the air or if all else fails straight up conjure a reason to say "not my fault", nothing new there.
-
Because my username is oxygen and the stridor icon sure looks like someone engaging in some sort of breathing-related activity, simple as 😄
-
That just moves it over to survivor on survivor. Just went down as the penultimate survivor and for one reason or another you're unhappy with the last one's performance? Just DC to deny them a chance at hatch.
Just take a page out the book where the idea of making the hatch a "draw" or "null" result MMR wise and go further with that. Make it count as a kill in every way (emblems, BP, challenges, adept achievements and so on) so it genuinely does not matter if they escape via hatch or not in any of those ways.
-
While I understand why people might do it and even feel like it's justified, personally I refuse to do it.
My main issue is that the very concept of toxicity is something with such an extremely varied definition that might very well change from player to player. It's not just the "obvious" stuff like tbagging or hook hits that make people feel like "retaliatory toxicity" is justified, all the completely wild things people consider "toxic" or "abuse" might lead to that kinda behavior. As a result it's really not as simple as "You tbag/hook hit me, I do the opposite to you".
-
Maybe after 27 more people will finally understand how a character, weapon, class or whatever else in a game specifically designed with a high skill floor + high skill ceiling as the goal is like though.
-
Lets just ascend all the way, killswitch the killswitch itself.
-
The point of the DC penalty was never to make even the first DC put people in a "well, guess I might as well quit for today" situation. A single DC can totally happen for perfectly legitimate reasons like connection trouble or even the game crashing, it's when several happen in short succession things get either kinda sussy or someone is playing on a connection that might be too unstable for online games.
It's supposed to inconenience the dude that DCs when they go down first or when the first survivor they chased didn't go down in 15 seconds and, and increasingly inconvenience them if they don't take the hint. Not make someone that crashes think "Well, I can't be bothered waiting half an hour so I'll just play something else".
-
@EternalSinOfCain said:
He's just moving a bit. Should have been around for the true Face Camp days. Back then, Killers could stand in one spot and block the hook prompt like Survivors can to body block. They changed it cause it was an "exploit" to for killers to use their collision / hit box to block the unhook prompt. However survivors using their collision / hit box to prevent a hook is "perfectly fine."
I always felt that was bias as hell toward Survivors. If using your collision / hit box is an "exploit", then that applies for both sides, not just one side.
It should be immediately obvious that an obstruction you can simply hit out of the way is in no way whatsoever the same as an obstruction that is mechanically impossible to bypass outside of bizarre put-down-item-to-glitch-into-killer-hitbox tricks and stuff from back then.
-
To get a reaction. Stop giving it to them, either just hit them out or if you really can't deal with seeing it go afk once EGC starts and watch a quick 5 minute youtube video or something.
-
I'd imagine Hag and Twins as they're both killers where if you don't like playing the way their powers want you to play, you simply won't like them as killers in general. And it seems pretty accurate too, while I see Twins here and there I ran into the first hag in like... 2 months or something yesterday.
-
With the sole exception that the actual light effects of click spam should be removed, for potential photosensitivity issues. Just make it so there's very little light until the beam starts to "solidify" and tighten as you start actually blinding the killer. Everything else has zero actual game impact unless the killer reacts like a mmorpg mob getting taunted by a tank player.
-
It's actually a good perk, but it should absolutely notify other players that you have it before it's activated. Show an icon or something that's grey at first, and lights up when someone procs it just to make it double obvious it's in use.
I mean the same goes for Deliverance and in my opinion many other perks that might make people try to play in seemingly less intuitive ways, but Kinship in particular is more in need of something like this than any other imo.
-
People are dcing/giving up for the same reason they always did, they're just ragequitting like I'm sure even people in ancient times did by flipping the table when they realized they were losing the Game of Ur or whatever they were playing.
or
They're doing it with some kind of long-term motive, either delusional enough to think their personal contribution would have any sort of noticable impact (as said, delusional) or it's some kind of coordinated leaderless scheme (ridiculous enough to cause a worldwide tinfoil shortage)
Damn this one is hard, might have to use a lifeline and call my pal Occam to hear if I can borrow his razor real quick.
-
@AnchorTea said:
New Haddonfield is mechanically better but I miss the "blueness" of old Haddonfield.
Oh man, I forgot about Haddonfield when posting about moonlight offerings earlier in the thread.
Old Haddonfield + brightest moonlight offering looked super pretty, it really went well with the natural lighting of the map and the result was very pleasing to the eyes.
-
Just drop the whole "clever" part of the system. Just use a classic blacklist of words + make filter dodging a reportable offense, and add common filter-dodging variations to the list over time.
I don't want to see the peak wacky that is an end game chat where someone else can write "rancor" no problem but when I do it's filtered no matter how many times I try, how does that make any sense lmao. That's not some awkward "you can't type assassin because it has "ass" as a substring sorry" situation, it makes absolutely zero sense.
-
"Using a VPN" basically means nothing by itself. Someone using one for normal reasons like privacy won't pick a server that gives them 300ms or anything, they'll pick the most convenient location that works for what they want and depending on where they live / the locations their VPN provider offers you won't notice at all.
For the minority that genuinely do use them to inflate their latency, the best way to deal with it is to just make sure extreme latency is a disadvantage. Validate stuff and all of that. Starting to ban for it would lead to a ton of false reports based on "they lagged a lot so they must be vpning/lagswitching/whatever" to people seeing players from very real server dead zones like South Africa show up in their lobbies thinking they did something to make it happen on purpose.
-
Moonlight offerings and the old "realm filters", in particular blue tint MacMillan.
-
They removed it? I mean, it should certainly be a thing when DH works the way it does now.
But at the same time I feel anything that can in any way be viewed as "dead hard buff" would cause a response that can only be considered thermonuclear, so not too surprised if the devs feel iffy about it.
-
Of course they do, digging up (or if that fails, straight up conjuring with some kinda esoteric mind magic) a reason to say "It's not my fault I lost" is a Gamer Tradition as old as games themselves.
Not even just video games. I'm sure people in the ancient world pushed their Game of Ur board off the table angrily yelling "I didn't mean to make that bad move, I had the sun in my eyes! You only won because you sat on that end of the table!"
-
Alright, when I saw the clip was 29 seconds I was like "Damn, time to do the math to see if this is even theoretically possible and how it might have happened, 4 BNPs maybe?", but then I saw over half the clip was loading + start-of-match-spin.
Final diagnosis: they just had top of the line gaming toothpaste and gaming hair gel, unlucky 😔
-
Trying to assign any deeper meaning to it than there's people that ragequit, and some that do it a lot, is borderline tinfoil hat territory.
And yeah yeah, I've seen the threads where people claim to do it on here too. And a rather peculiar amount of the claims are from fresh accounts with less than 10 posts, every single one of them in their own thread about exactly that. Should I put on the good old tinfoil fashion and claim it's a killer main shadow scheme to implicate survivors in intentional stat manipulation or something? Of course not, it's just people engaging in a little bit of trolling.
Like, I'm sure there's certain individuals out there that are actually delusional enough to think doing so will be anything but a microscopic splash you'd need a lot of decimal spaces in the kill rate stats to see even a shadow of, but anyone claiming "survivors" as some kinda group is doing it makes as much sense as claiming killers that let the last survivor go for whatever reason are secretly doing it to lower the killrate by 0.00004% or something.
-
To put it that way, if you wanted to engage in some kinda weird stat manipulation (which wouldn't work anyway, as the number of people willing to do it will be an essentially irrelevant statistical minority on the scale that is "every DBD match that takes place") as survivor you don't even have to throw like that. You can simply choose to die, either by letting the killer kill you whenever you want, or even intentionally dying to EGC no matter if the killer is still trying to get you or they went to face a corner in the basement 5 minutes ago. You can play the game however you want and still die, you quite simply can not be forced to escape.
And I have never seen anything resembling this, not once. People that screw over their teammates in ways like you talk about are quite simply rage quitting for one reason or another in the overwhelming majority of cases. It isn't any deeper than that.
-
I have never in my life seen that. Not saying you're lying, but claiming that is anything that makes "streamers" as in the plural form of streamer accurate and not something certain individuals might do is kinda weird.
Only times I see streamers block their screen is in the lobby and they also try to block out names a lot of the time, which is nice all around. Both helps a little against streamsniping and makes sure no absolute gremlin watching the stream decides it's a heckin epic idea to harass someone that did something "bad" in the match.
-
I just want it to at the very least inform other survivors that it's in play. When someone gets hooked 2nd hook, show an icon or something that makes it clear the person on the hook has it, so everyone knows they can play around it and they actually have more time to save (or in the case of that kinda camping, more time to slam gens) than the bar might make them think. Because it's genuinely a perk that does its job well, but it requires teamwork and it should really show itself so people actually have a slight chance to want to use it outside of SWF.
-
@WeaverReaver42 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3084764#Comment_3084764
That IS a problem, but if you look about 3 comments above you- there is a prime example of why some killers try and make the argument. There might not be ALOT of people who feel the dead hard nerf was unfair, but they exist. My point wasn't that genuine complaints aren't there, but that it's hard for killers to take the complaints at face value when there are people unironically saying that dead hard was fine and the nerf was totally unwarranted. I know that you and that person aren't the same, but not everyone is going to make that distinction. I will be the first to admit that survivors do need a bit of love asap, but I've seen posts that sound like survivors think NO ONE is sad about the dead hard nerf and that killers are pulling the dead hard complaints out of nowhere.
TLDR: yeah the posts of genuine complaints are FAR more common and should be considered, I just think killers are somewhat annoyed because there are survivors still mad about the deadhard nerf and it's far easier to notice the obviously bad takes from the more nuanced ones, which could impact some of their responses (not all, some killers ARE toxic and trying to deflect- I just don't think it's all of them).
Yeah I get you, I in no way think it's some kinda sleazy intentional attempt to derail or anything either. I will readily admit there's things that kinda sour my perception of entire topics when I see it as well, and I feel it happens when you see people defend something you believe was basically universally disliked or should have been. Not an accusation as all, as I feel a similar way when I see people genuinely defend stuff like old moris as in my mind their change was an objective improvement of the game just like the DH change, and the same can be said about the DS change that added deactivation conditions.
I'd be lying if I tried to claim that doesn't make me imagine them as some stereotypical hyper-biased person, even if there's a genuinely good and interesting take on something else in the same post. Not sure if that's some kinda cognitive bias with a name or what, but I'm guilty of it as well even though the self-awareness makes it so I don't act on it, but obviously that won't be the case for everyone.
-
What I don't get is that it firstly doesn't even seem consistent. Just yesterday I saw someone type "tbag", which I've seen censored before. I'm pretty sure I've seen it blank out an entire sentence before. I've also seen a post game chat where one person got censored when typing "Rancor", while another person could type it no problem???
And I also wish it was just a good old blacklist of words people really shouldn't say in the first place, just blank out the entire sentence when that happens. That way you know when you see it, they actually said something reportable.
And of course, I'd like to see it customizable and/or optional. I really like Steam's own integrated system that is used in games like TF2. Has presets like slurs only, slurs + profanity and no censor, and a custom blacklist where people can put any words they don't want to see and they get censored too. Player choice like that is always good if you ask me.
-
I dunno, I feel like I've seen way more posts that have a sorta "Who cares the patch was straight up radical by DBD standards and changed a lot, all complaints from a survivor POV no matter if they're about solo, certain killer + perk combos or anything else are just people mad about DH being changed" energy than people actually claiming DH shouldn't be changed, or even that it should have kept the 1 second duration from the PTB.
-
@AarcvanDemen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3082394#Comment_3082394
Yes, I know for sure there are people behind this to spam posts on this forum to gain as much attention from the devs and nerf the killers once more like they did to freddy.
I honestly can't tell if you're serious, but I really hope it isn't serious 😄
-
Somehow I doubt all the threads that are mostly about people's experience in solo queue is "swf bully squads" complaining. Unless your theory is that it's some mastermind shadow scheme where they all got together to pretend to be solo queuers or something, I guess.
-
Sadly player shaming over what they run, aka pure distilled scrub mentality, is pretty normalized.
I know how you feel, I despise it so much that while it would be fairly extreme I would genuinely support straight up banning people for doing it. Extremely rotten mindset with the potential end point of "They used <thing I don't like>, that means it's justified to be genuinely toxic to them in end game chat, as merely equipping that thing is inherently toxic so they cast the first stone :)" which I've already seen many times throughout the years.
-
@RavenBirb said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3069115#Comment_3069115
It's an overused, overpowered perk thats getting changed completely. Good and Overpowered are 2 separate things. So if it was a "good" perk it wouldn't be in this seat
"Good and overpowered are 2 seperate things"... what? A perk being overpowered literally means it's too good and that certainly qualifies it as a good, strong perk.
Either way, stop attacking/shaming players for using stuff that's in the game. By all means talk about what you think should be changed, but keep the focus on the actual perks/add-ons/whatever else instead of dipping into scrub mentality territory by blaming the players for daring to select it in game.
-
I'd return to playing a bunch of TF2 and various Paradox strategy games I guess. Or well, I'd play them even more as I still play them all alongside DBD.
-
@Swampoffering said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3066189#Comment_3066189
This is a big lie.
SWF was not intented because it wasnt avalible at release. People used to jump between lobbies until the got matched (No crossPlay on that moment). DBD was a failure and players stopped playing like one or two months later, the game was literally dying and they decided to make a master move, SWF.
They never tested it, NEVER. But the game was dying and that was the best idea, they released SWF with zero balance, with zero care about how killers will be abused since that moment until now.... And today, 5 years after the worst idea on this game, they still not balancing SWF because they know that 60+% of players are using this cncerous feature and nerf it is loosing money.
They already said it on a interview - There is nothing we can do to balance the game around survive with friends, we could loose a huge amount of players.
So please, do not speak without info.
... but DBD only grew in both average and peak players in the 1 month between game release and the addition of SWF?
It's a multiplayer game released in 2016. Implying it wasn't something the devs worked on including even before release is borderline calling them ignorant of the industry they're working in at best.
-
Why on earth wouldn't I? To be fair I haven't played in a party bigger than a duo for like a year, but I find it fun so why would I stop lmao?
@ThiccBudhha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3065900#Comment_3065900
Devs punish you for holding a 3 gen and call it "taking the game hostage." The survivors who refuse to do their objective? They are Gucci, mang.
I haven't heard of a single person ever getting in trouble like that for 3genning besides pre-rework Doctors 3genning on The Game, making no effort to kill survivors even when they give up. Instead just endlessly zapping them and kicking gens.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3061090#Comment_3061090
Depends. Is what they want to use a cosmetic that has zero affect on me, or a perk that has broken the game for a long time now?
It shouldn't matter. It's in no way their fault that this or that is in the state it's in, and they shouldn't be attacked in any way for simply using it.
-
You're half right, no one should be able to use them as they either should not exist or be reversed (use map offering x = you WON'T go to realm x).
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3061090#Comment_3061090
People on these forums are constantly player shaming for camping and tunneling, and for using specific killers, and for using specific meta perks. I'm not sure why that's ok, but dead hard shaming is not ok?????
Yes, and they should also stop to bring the total amount of people doing it closer to the desired number (0). I never implied differently whatsoever.
And I'm also not telling people they can't dislike a perk, a killer, a survivor, an item, a strategy or whatever else. All I'm saying is going after players for simply using it is Not Epic, no matter if they're doing it over Dead Hard, NOED or whatever else.
-
10 times? So far removed from "common" that it's almost comical. The odds of that happening are in the quintillionths in fact.
It might be some kinda bias, but even far less absurd strings of matches like 2 or 3 in a row are pretty unlikely yet don't feel like it. Even getting the same map 2 times in a row is somewhere around a 1% chance and it sure feels more common than 1/100 times I play 2 matches.
Of course that's assuming the odds are actually fair, that maps do have the same chance of being picked and there's not some sort of preference for certain maps the devs can mess around with outside of prioritizing new maps. AND assuming that the game rolls for one of the 38 maps in the game directly, instead of rolling for realm first and then map. I don't know if either is true.
-
Don't know why you'd essentially admit to engaging in player shaming, as that is very much Not Epic to say it in a diplomatic way.
Who cares what people want to use? I know too many people do, but the desired answer to that question is "No One".
-
No.
Their purpose isn't to make a single DC some sort of "Wow, gotta wait so long I might as well play something else!" kinda thing, it's to make it increasingly inconvenient for players engaging in "nooooo the first survivor I found is a sapient organism that didn't go down in 0.0042 seconds / the killer found me first / i got a map I dislike / whatever" and DC regularly to continue playing. That's the players the system aims to truly punish.
-
The only difference between 99d gate and open gate is if EGC has started. EGC only exists to put a time limit on the match, which is why the killer has the ability to start it as well (opening the gate, closing the hatch).
EGC honestly does not exist to put pressure on either side or help either side, it's entirely an anti hostagetaking mechanic with some cool visuals and audio slapped on. As long as both killers and survivors can start it, it's working perfectly actually.
-
It does its job perfectly - it ends the match or starts a timer that ends the match in the overwhelming majority of matches (it's rare to see a killer just stand on it and look around and not close it, but in that case the survivor can do gens for free if they want and activate the gates that way)
That's its purpose.
-
Let the last survivor straight up teleport themselves onto a basement hook if slugged for more than 10 seconds (to let the killer mori them/pick them up if they want).
Add a button in the basement the killer can hit to instantly make all living survivors escape. This includes slugged and hooked ones, this is a "gg go next" mechanic, not a kill securing one. EDIT: Obviously only in end game. Don't really care if that means once gens are done or once gates are open.
If all living survivors are some combo of downed or hooked, let them vote. If all of them votes yes, the slugs all get teleported to a basement hook. They do not get to attempt escape/use deliverance or whatever, they just get rushed through hook states to death like when the last survivor is hooked. This is a "gg go next" mechanic, not a setup for wacky deliverance resets. If a survivor is about to get up with unbreakable or something, they can just vote no. I am well aware some might vote no to be a heckin epic troll but at least it's not abusable as far as I know.
I think stuff like that would be fine. Purely focused on cutting down on the time spent finishing a match that in the vast majority of circumstances already have their result decided.
-
The EGC only exists to put a time limit on the match. As long as both the survivors and killer can start EGC, it's doing its job perfectly - preventing game-hostage situations.
It is not supposed to inherently help either side. It's just a way to force the match to end that has some fancy visuals included.
-
Probably somewhere in the 400-500 range spread on all sorts of killers and survivors. And I'll be using them every game until I'm out. I am the Blood Hunt.
-
I'm a hoarder, simple as.
The only exception is the basic yellow flashlight. It's abundant and fun to use even though I don't go out of my way to force the use of it, but it's surprising how often the opportunity to go for a save comes up anyway. Otherwise I just go empty handed and grab a chest if I stumble upon one.
-
I used to believe doing "vent games" where I go out of my way to make player(s) in matches after a frustrating one miserable as some sorta payback made any sense whatsoever. I should not be forgiven for that.
-
When people say "don't care about end game chat", that applies no matter who's saying what in it. As long as you're not breaking any rules, it's none of their business how you play. Most would probably just love if everyone played "Normally" no matter how incredibly vague that is, but others will just conjure stuff to complain about so they can think "I didn't lose the right way, so the loss doesn't count!".
-
Even though there's several interesting options my brain immediately locks onto the report system improvements. The current system needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt, both because of the cumbersome evidence providing process and the very vague descriptions you see on the report reasons in game.
Maybe then we won't get monthly "the survivors bodyblocked me and I couldn't get the hook hook, and they aren't banned??? but it says bodyblocking is griefing what's going on???" threads or the equivalent about a Billy keeping someone in a corner for a second or two to chainsaw them.