pseudechis
pseudechis
About
- Username
- pseudechis
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@predalienman1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185876#Comment_3185876
I will feel better if someone actually tries to change my mind.
It’s not killer sided but it’s not survivor sided either.
Both sides have situational strengths that can be leveraged for big advantage.
All of which can be countered to some extent.
Its just easier to complain and get someone else to fix it than it is to improve.
Time spent in game has little or nothing to do with it and you often find touting time spent online begs the question, well why haven’t they figured out a way to play around it yet?
-
@dugman said:
And dont give me that "4:1 ratio" bs, in that case BP incentive would be around 25-50%
Why do you think the incentive wouldn’t be 100%?
Hypothetically say half the people in queue are survivors and the other half are killers. That means the survivor queue is four times smaller than it needs to be, they need 60% of the killers in that scenario to switch sides. Do you think that many people would switch if the incentive was small?
My favourite part about the BP bonus, and often steam charts, is how people use them as evidence that something is wrong with the game…
that survivors are quitting….
or the game is dying…
when the reality is they just failed math in high school.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3186383#Comment_3186383
It shouldn't be part of the game... why not? You want every game to play out the same way? Survivors should always be forced to do X, killers should always be forced to do Y?
Yes. Survivors should have a clear objective, and Killers should have a clear objective.
In every game, there should be a clear objective.
Imagine I'm playing you in chess, and you're about to checkmate me when I say "actually, I have a trapdoor on this board that my king is going to jump into. ggs mate, you tried." Next time we square up for chess, you might as well ask me to just jump in the trapdoor immediately and save us both from wasted time.
You devalue the real win condition when you add in a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) win condition that players can fall back on when they fail to meet their actual win condition. Why ever strive for the first win condition, when the second win condition is always there and can be reached with with greater ease?
What is even your hypothesis?
You think I want the game changed BECAUSE OF this Dwight? Like some kind of evil villain arc, you think this is the worst thing to ever happen to me--my life has been drastically changed for the worse--and now I'm here trying to enact my revenge?
Buddy, I think I've made it pretty clear here that I'm not some 10-hour Andy throwing their first babyrage rant up on the forums because I didn't like something that happened to me.
Is that why you're discrediting me? Do you think I'm just babyraging?
Because there is substance to my argument here. Substance that you and others, for some reason completely unbeknownst to me, are repeatedly sidestepping in favor of "suck it up, its just a game."
Yeah, well... game sucks, it needs improvements.
"Yes. Survivors should have a clear objective, and Killers should have a clear objective.
In every game, there should be a clear objective." They do have a clear objective, survivors need to repair gens and escape, killers need to eliminate survivors, what about that isn't clear.
Anything goes within the confines of those two objectives providing its within the games rules.
None of that means Dwight is obligated to save your butt if things are going south. There is an avenue for escape that doesn't involve teamwork (the hatch) and you can choose to fall back on it if you want but you don't get much for doing that its better to participate in the clearly defined objective.
Q and A. Time
You think I want the game changed BECAUSE OF this Dwight? Like some kind of evil villain arc, you think this is the worst thing to ever happen to me--my life has been drastically changed for the worse--and now I'm here trying to enact my revenge? No, but your original post is just a context free dig at BHVR, that was clearly made while not happy about the game, you've tried to rationalize it since but it clearly comes from a place of emotion and not logic. You're over the top framing of this question doesn't really help to paint you as rational in this exchange either.
Buddy, I think I've made it pretty clear here that I'm not some 10-hour Andy throwing their first babyrage rant up on the forums because I didn't like something that happened to me. Again while there is no tone in text it comes off as kinda ragey and emotional. Doesn't matter how many hours you have in game its not just new players who rage at the game.
Is that why you're discrediting me? Do you think I'm just babyraging? A lil bit but you don't seem to need much help from me because as I already pointed out look at your original post, does it seem like something someone would post seriously if in a rational and calm head space at the time?
Riveting gameplay, with a photo covered in writing and a bunch of question marks signed thanks BHVR, now if it was tongue and cheek dig at the game sure but you've since doubled down on wanting game changes to punish what you see as an unfair outcome.
When what people have pointed out what they see here is a smart play by Dwight to secure a hatch escape after his team started failing at the objective. But as you've pointed out "This post ain't about whether or not Dwight made the right play."
"This post is about the impact Dwight's decision had on other players' experience, and the fact that his decision was well rewarded, despite the negative impact it had on others."
Your game experience was negative because of a team mates in game choices. People shouldn't be rewarded if they make decisions that might impact the team negatively. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of your point?
Would you also agree that making a good choice for yourself can sometimes trump making a good choice for the team in terms of personal game experience and likelihood of escape?
Scenarios where you take the selfish option should then be attenuated by lower BP's, MMR and pips. Making selfish actions less desirable over team oriented ones but still possible if the situation calls for it.
I'm pretty sure hatch escapes already don't increase MMR, not sure how they affect pips and BP's (should probably count for less though) but overall playing for the hatch is already less rewarding than trying to complete the team objective so what's the problem really?
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185613#Comment_3185613
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185784#Comment_3185784
You're completely missing the point here.
@pseudechis your "it's just part of the game" attitude completely disregards my message. It shouldn't be part of the game. That is the point.
Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer. I assume you accept that as fact, because you support the Dwight for declaring our 3v1 to be a "hatch game," even though you have no information about how far into the match we were, and how much gen progress was made on any other generator (for all you know, we could have had 3+ gens over 50% progress, but only 1 complete).
Any one survivor can enter the trial deciding not to advance the objective, and play solely for hatch (as it appears this Dwight did). This strategy has been made even more viable in recent patches, with perks like Sole Survivor, Wake Up, Low Profile, Left Behind, and a key in-hand.
The two above sentences;
Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer.
and
Any one survivor can enter the trial deciding not to advance the objective, and play solely for hatch
are glaring design issues.
If survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer, than the game should NEVER motivate any one survivor to do anything but help their team.
"Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer. I assume you accept that as fact," you assume wrong, never assume its bad form. Its more than possible for a 3v1 to come out in the survivors favour. Maybe not so much at 4-5 gens left but if you are at 3v1 in that scenario your team has dropped the ball already. Its gonna be hard but not impossible.
"Any one survivor can enter the trial deciding not to advance the objective, and play solely for hatch (as it appears this Dwight did)" Did he though? you're attributing the the whole team's loss to his choice to play selfish after the team was going down hard at 4 gens up anyway. Yeah it didn't help but the blame likely doesn't solely rest with Dwight.
Yes it was an uphill battle and the Dwight likely decided to save his own butt rather than yours or anyone else's and that's his in game choice.
Altruism and selfishness are choices in game, the emblem and BP system rewards altruism but it comes with he risk of exposure and death meaning it could cost you an escape. Selfishness comes with the likelihood of escape but little reward in other areas.
You seem to fail to grasp that this choice is part of the game and adds to its variety of game outcome. These are not glaring design issues they are the result of freedom of choice in game and the ability to react to how games are playing out.
You are assuming that Dwight came into the game wanting to solely play for hatch from the get go and that assumption alone makes up your whole point and so we come full circle to my first point. Don't assume it leads to weak arguments.
It shouldn't be part of the game... why not? You want every game to play out the same way?
Survivors should always be forced to do X, killers should always be forced to do Y?
Let me submit a hypothesis, I'm not assuming anything this is a idea submitted for you to consider and rebuke if you wish...
You died in game, you saw Dwight not trying to save anyone, you got angry about how unjust that felt, that anger created a narrative where Dwight's sole motivation was to just play for hatch from the get go, which justifies you being angry about it and now you want game changes so that people are punished for this play because you got angry that its not fair.... Think about it.
If you are concerned about people not being punished for playing for hatch then they don't get MMR increases or many BP's or emblem points so they are already punished via game mechanics.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185026#Comment_3185026
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185040#Comment_3185040
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185059#Comment_3185059
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185138#Comment_3185138
Guys, I understand the Dwight's line of thinking.
Dude is equipped to save his own hide--I see why this was a no-brainer for him. It's not what I would do 99.9% percent of the time, but I get it.
That said...
This post ain't about whether or not Dwight made the right play.
This post is about the impact Dwight's decision had on other players' experience, and the fact that his decision was well rewarded, despite the negative impact it had on others.
@pseudechis I'm not here to dictate how people should be playing the game. Dwight should be able to maintain his agency. If he wants to leave my ass on hook, so be it. My quarrel is with this gameplay being rewarded.
As @TragicSolitude noted, BHVR is trying to have their cake and eat it to. This "we're teammates, but oh... I'm going to abandon you at the moment its most convenient for me," gameplay is problematic for the game's health. The whole game becomes a giant prisoner's dilemma, unless the killer is extremely incompetent.
but to punish it is you affecting his license. Don’t kid yourself about the topic it’s very clear that you want the Dwight to fail for playing selfish.
Well guess what selfish will net you more rewards in a lot of circumstances.
I get the point you are making but it has all these rather negative undertows that undermine it.
Dwight made a play to increase his chances of survival and *drum beat* it increased his chances of survival.
Why get angry about it move on already, it’s just part of the game.
-
Do you know if this is their go to strategy every game or are you assuming their motivation and "playstyle" because of this single event?
I mean I've oscillated between chase heavy games and more hook defend campy games when I'm not feeling like committing to every chase.
"One guy did gens while the rest of us “distracted” the killer which essentially just means we unhooked anybody he hooked as he wasn’t even doing chases, just standing at hooks and hogging them lol?" If all the play is centered around the hook then as killer why leave?
Not like there was no killer interaction, your description makes it sound like a lot of hook trading and back and forth played out. Making what sounds like a pretty fun game.
I know there is a "camping boo" mentality among a lot of players but you'd be amazed how interactive a game like that can be when players engage for hook trades and saves.
Don't fall into the trap of "I don't find it fun, therefore no one should find it fun" mentality.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3184966#Comment_3184966
Dwight was up there for the minute and a half Ada was on hook, forcing me to trade with her.
You can't seriously make excuses for this kind of gameplay.
The "game was over" because Dwight abstained from progressing the objective for 4 minutes.
---
Regardless of whether or not that was the smartest play for Dwight, my issue here is with the game, and the fact this scenario is possible.
You can't really hate on it either.
I mean sometimes people are gonna play selfish, it emulates realism, not everyone is gonna risk it to save you.
The variable nature of the game is what keeps it interesting. Sometimes its a clean sweep, sometimes its a lost cause and sometimes its hard fought.
Like a real survival horror film, someone's not always going to stick their neck out for a stranger, in a SWF with their friends they'd probably try but with a bunch of strangers hmm maybe not.
Not every survivor is going to be generic hero guy all the time.
"Regardless of whether or not that was the smartest play for Dwight, my issue here is with the game, and the fact this scenario is possible." Oof that's some dangerous thinking there, akin to "we have to force everyone to play the same all the time!"
Nothing wrong with thinking "Dwight you selfish cowardly jerk!" but to say "Dwight should be forced to try and save me!" well frankly... 🤢🤮 on that notion.
-
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3184963#Comment_3184963
This only works with lower skilled survivors. They gotta learn to take what chase they can get, then immediately hop on a gen if killer won’t commit. If they can last in chase that is.
Not always, you'd be amazed the number of games I've turned around because the survivors appear to have assumed I'm new simply due to being repeatedly outplayed in chase.
They seem to forget their objective all together and then get destroyed at 1-2 gens left because they just stop repairing gens and try to get in your face.
Whether that was the plan all along who knows but many are very salty about the match outcome post game, so makes me think it wasn't.
-
@not_requested49 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3184588#Comment_3184588
If you "just smash gens" you depip/dont earn anything due to lack of interaction
To earn evader and altruism you have to hang near the afk killer and let him hit you so your team can heal u and repeat
yeah but the pip system is flawed in that way.
Personally when you have an afk killer standing around potentially waiting for endgame I go and clear all the totems. You have all the time in the world to find em. Then just finish the gens and move on.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/G1YCS1VF6WMV/toxicity-png.png
This old reply I made within a thread explains it perfectly.
What you are describing is not toxicity. You are describing people playing the game. And regardless of rather you see it as distasteful or not, people can do it as long as it is allowed within the rules of the game (except trolling/teaming as survivor as you briefly mentioned, as that is, to a degree, against the game rules and people can get banned for doing it).
Pretty much this.
There is definitely play that can be obnoxious but its not toxic.
Now thematically killer obnoxious play is more forgivable because they are a monster there to violently murder you, so it kinda fits. Survivor obnoxious play often feels out of place thematically because it reduces the game from a scary survival horror to a bland PVP game depending how extreme it is. This is just my personal opinion on how I enjoy the game.
Again this doesn't make any of it toxic though, nor does anyone playing in a particular way that doesn't fit my ideal game of DBD. Its online PVP we all have different ideas of what's fun in game.
The toxic part of the game and community is most often the mindset of those who overreact to obnoxious play. They feel it justifies them in being mean, abusive and trollish beyond the game itself. Sending abusive messages etc.
It often involves imagining very negative narratives of other players, which are completely fabricated and solely intended to demonize other players while rationalizing any toxic opinions they may have. You see it on the forums a lot "camping killers are just scumbags who want to ruin other people's fun" etc.
If you find yourself getting angry at the game or other players over legitimate in game mechanics, you should take a step back and take a breath before you go do something toxic.
If you don't like something in game then its fine to say hey I don't like this but it doesn't make other players toxic if they don't agree.
-
@NuKeD said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3184596#Comment_3184596
guess that's the only way...
I'm not saying purposefully tank your mmr or go afk or anything like that, I'm just saying we all hit that wall.
So just play it out be ready to eat a few losses before you get back to a balanced match.
-
It really is a complete fallacy that BHVR want survivors or killers to quit the game.
Basically it sounds like you have peaked ability wise and have hit a wall. That's not BHVR's fault really.
I wish the MMR was more consistent too but if you aren't pressuring gens well or chasing efficiently you don't have to be at high MMR to get creamed by even slightly organised survivors.
I hit that wall too and it can feel like you have to eat a lot of losses to get back to manageable games, often only taking one or two wins to get back into the sweats.
You used to be able to just go for BBQ stacks and still walk away feeling accomplished but now you just have to eat a bunch of losses to reset things.
-
@Bot_Salvo88 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3184582#Comment_3184582
It was noed and he was tier 1. It was embarrassing
ah well it pays not to taunt an afk killer, just smash out the gens and escape.
I mean in that scenario NOED shouldn't get the killer any kills or one at most if everyone just plays as they normally would.
-
@Bot_Salvo88 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3184573#Comment_3184573
Yeah because we were all with our brains turned off since all gens got done and he was afk. We were all around the killer and pointing at him. He stayed intentionally afk all game just to kill us all at the end because of noed, which is dumb.
Was it noed or did you stand around taunting an infinite T3 Myers while he stalked you all out?
I've done that before, insidious plus tombstone and you stand there till all the survivors run around in your face taunting you, most of the time they don't even notice the tier ups and then you pop T3 and kill them all.
Its a novelty you do once or twice and then move on.
-
Honestly keep searching.
break anything you can break and spam your power for the BP’s if you can but yeah it’s a game of cat and mouse might as well enjoy it.
Be patient… be a hunter.
-
In game, largely indifferent.
You have no context it could be a tit for tat scenario and you missed the first half.
It could be two friends trying to muck about with each other.
You are entirely in the dark so I refrain from making any assumptions and just play.
In endgame chat it’s pretty clear and I’m happy to call anyone out for being a post game sore loser / bad winner or just a crappy person over some trivial meaningless event in a computer game.
When I bother to look at end game chat which isn’t very often outside of a GG and move on.
-
@Johann84 said:
Nah still feel unjustified
I get that because your intent isn’t to disconnect but you are still disconnecting.
So you can either invest in a solution to no longer disconnect i.e get better internet etc.
Or you can play within the confines of your current set up which means accepting that you don’t have the equipment to play online games with any stability and may eat a disconnect penalty as a result.
-
@TheProphetsHarbinger said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3182513#Comment_3182513
90% of my own matches.
Herein lies the problem with your point. You’ve taken your personal game experience and applied it to every solo survivor.
I’d say this game is in a really great spot at the moment. Survivor is exciting and killer feels appropriately intimidating.
There are threads on the steam charts already, the player base is not in significant decline. Anyone saying that is cherry picking their numbers and not looking at the long term trend.
Now there is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t like the game in its current state” and making suggestions to BHVR, but you gotta also be open to some of the suggestions made by folks that could help you improve and enjoy the game more.
As an average dbd player I still have a pretty good escape rate but that’s due to putting in the effort to improve at playing survivor within the confines of the current game iteration.
It sounds to me like you are struggling to play survivor and it’s up to everyone else to fix that for you because it’s not fun. You’ve taken this a step further saying well if it’s not fun for you it’s must not be fun for anyone so it’s a problem. But that just blatantly untrue.
Don’t confuse your opinion with the factual state of the game over all.
Survivor is the most thrilling it’s been for a long time and I’d say that’s a net positive game wise, given it’s asymmetric survival horror theme.
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3182202#Comment_3182202
Yes, that is a famous experiment with millions of views on youtube. But you're wrong. I'm not asking for a grape. I'm not asking to be allowed to escape. I'm saying, kill everyone... you know, like a serial killer is supposed to do. Fixes a lot of issues.
But it doesn’t matter what happens once you are eliminated.
You can apply all kinds of false sense of justice to it or wanted outcome but it’s completely out of your control and only relevant if you make it so for yourself.
Sometimes the killer is gonna let someone go and it may not be you. But it doesn’t change your outcome at all if you are already dead.
Killer may kill everyone, they may only kill you and let everyone else go. Either way it doesn’t matter move on already.
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3182110#Comment_3182110
What you perceive as charity to one player, is in fact frustrating the other players whom you didn't give this charity. Playing favorites is wrong. Use whatever reasons you want to justify it in your mind, you are upsetting the other players by doing it. I find it interesting that your immediate response is to bully me by mocking me, "tissue paper sensibilities", to avoid the responsibility of you doing something that's upsetting others.
Why are you upset over this?
Its beyond ridiculous.
I mean take an objective step back and really analyse what you are saying in this thread.
If you don’t get to live no one should get to live eh?
You’ve even created this whole narrative of the killer playing favourites for a fun ruining game experience.
-
Are sensibilities just made of tissue paper these days or is this a bait post?
Seriously of all the things to be triggered by... someone else getting to survive due to killer charity at endgame is not fair and needs to stop. 😂
Is this what happens when all the kids who threw themselves on the ground in a tantrum over not getting a new toy at the super market grow up and start playing games?
Is it the result of everybody gets a trophy day events so no one has to feel like they lost thus they never learned to cope with losing?
This community baffles me in how delicate it is over every perceived slight. When its such an adult genre, survival horror.
"I'm gonna play this violent game where you have to escape from some monster a la 1980's slashers flicks, but no one is allowed to kill me or stab me or make me feel like my fun is under threat, and everybody has to play fair!"
I had this neighbour when I was a kid who was always threatening to take their toys and go home if they didn't get their way, at some point you just gotta say ok go home then I'll see you later.
-
Oh man all the doom and gloom reply posts.
I'm probably sitting in the average mid range of MMR, who knows really but my team mates seem semi competent most of the time, gens generally get done and killers (at least lately) are usually threatening enough to keep it interesting for the whole match. It fluctuates a bit but that's to be expected with random online PVP.
That's my genuine solo queue experience and its generally a lot of fun.
Camping and tunnelling aren't very common and when they do happen it really isn't the end of the world.
I also don't think that everything is camping and tunnelling I'm fairly sure the breadth of your personal definition of it dictates how much you see it rather than any real representations of it. But I digress...
I always love the BUFF SOLO argument as if somehow a selection of random PUG players can be expected to perform as well as a coordinated SWF team all the time, that's just nuts.
The game is in a pretty good spot at the moment as both killer and survivor, probably one of the best spots its been in a while.
-
@Nirgendwohin said:
Play
KillerSurvivor For 2 months and share your experience in hereI've been playing survivor for 2 years and I can say I think the OP is on the money.
If the killer was a really really hard to beat AI bot then there wouldn't be half the complaining there is, but because its another person everyone gets their ego riled up and its a constant complaint fest about how unfair and unjust it all is.
The game is kinda meant to be unfair and when it is, it emulates the slasher flicks that inspired it beautifully. Those games where the killer is a nasty monster you have to flee from to not die are the best games of DBD as survivor.
This often involves very underhanded play by the killer player and you know what its great if you embrace it for what it is a survival horror.
Just try and check your ego at the door because when you invite your ego in and then lose to another player, all of a sudden its a "waaah its not fair!" scenario.
Can all the people crying its not fair honestly say that they don't just want a consistent BOT like experience because they are struggling to deal with losing to another player?
I'm looking forward to custom game bots I find playing with random strangers online exhausting.
But I'll probably play a lot of custom game killer against bot survivors just for the fun of it and more live game survivor against killer players, because I doubt the bots will be as nasty as a player can be and trying to escape from a monster is what the game is all about.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3181927#Comment_3181927
Let's go, I'm having so much fun sitting on a hook for 2 minutes, getting 2K BP and watching your team losing the game.
So fun.
You can have your opinion, it's wrong though.
Actually you should try my opinion out for a few games because no matter what happens in game I generally have fun, don’t hold a grudge and appreciate a brutal player experience simulating a slasher flick.
There are very few scenarios in dbd that are unfun when you go into it with the expectation I’ve expressed here.
If being wrong means having fun and making the most of the game as is, then I guess I’ll happily be wrong.
Because sounds like being right means not having any fun and just being miserable about how unfair it all feels.
That sounds like a great game and really makes me ask why do even play if it’s all so unfair?
Dont give me the I didn’t get any BP, BPs are infinite if you play, you get them. Stop focusing on what you earn from the game and just play it come what may and you’ll be having fun in no time no matter what goes down.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3181838#Comment_3181838
It isn't fair.
People are allowed to complain about things that ruin their experience.
"Go for the save and give the Killer two downs instead of just one! In the .0001% chance that they screw up, one of you makes it out!"
“It isn’t fair” and that’s ok.
DBD shines as an asymmetric survival horror as a pvp game it’s a rather dull mechanical experience.
The imbalance makes the game exciting. It’s not fair that the killer is so strong but it’s also not fair that it’s 4 vs 1. That’s the idea.
People are so hung up of a sense of fair play they forget what this game is about. It’s not meant to be fair and that’s ok.
It doesn’t make your opponent a monster or a griefer it’s just someone playing the monster in a game.
Expect them to be a monster but leave it in game.
It’s still entirely possible to play around a camping killer no matter what killer it is but rather than play it out people just quit because “waah it’s not fair!”
I’m sorry but sack up, not every game is gonna be fair and that’s ok, in fact that’s the very thing that makes dbd a horror survival experience and it’s great.
-
Old Ebony moris were great.
As a counter point to the topic simply being what do you hate about the game.
I liked old ebony Moris. That’s my probably unpopular opinion.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3181811#Comment_3181811
Go ahead, save against that Bubba.
I have.
I’ve also failed a lot trying to do so but had a lot of fun trying.
I’ve also screwed up as a camping bubba and lost out, it happens.
But people just want to tantrum and give up. “It’s not fair waah!”
Go for the save, you might surprise yourself and the killer.
“It’s better to live one hour as a tiger than a whole lifetime as a worm” - Old cat saying.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
Honestly, if the killer is facecamping me and it's obvious he's doing so, I'm just going to suicide on hook. There is no point in wasting my time for less than 5k BP and a depip when that's inevitiable. So I just take that and move on to the next match. Is it selfish to suicide on hook and make it easier for the killer to kill the rest of the survivors? Sure. But not as selfish as the killer is being. If I am in a match with friends, yea I will stay to help them, but solo queue? I'm not wasting my time, and I don't blame others who don't want to do so either.
Now, when i am playing killer, I don't normally tunnel (a few exceptions, like those that are clicky clicky with flashlights, you're literally wanting me to chase you, I am going to. Don't claim I am tunneling you after) or camp (hell, even in end game I don't and that's the one time I think it's reasonable) and yet I still have survivors suicide on hook, and it's that I don't understand.
This is why camping works and killers have little incentive to not try it at 5 gens.
Congratulations you are part of the problem. 👏
-
Such a cop out response.
-
@Negi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3180983#Comment_3180983
Yeah, it was when gens were 80 seconds, deadlock didn't exist, ds was a threat so hook trading actually worked, and survivors didn't suicide the majority of the time they're getting camped. I guess be disingenuous and pretend things haven't changed.
Actually I’m being very genuine.
I’d say the tweaks made resulted in a better spread of gameplay than was previously available.
Haven’t had a game in a while where I didn’t see the killer all game because they were hard pressed to catch even 1 survivor. Remember those games where you just gen jockey for 5 gens while the killer ineffectively chased someone else.
Most games now have a high interaction with the killer, spread a lot of pressure and damage and are generally better than the last year or so.
Don’t know what happened to a lot of players but everyone seems to think you can solve the problem of rage quitting survivors by punishing and nerfing killers into the ground.
The rage quitters are gonna quit, the whiners are gonna whine and the rest of us just play the game. That’s about the sum of it.
-
There was a golden time when players would hook trade and make smart saves and focus down gens if someone was getting camped.
Now it’s just whine whine whine.
-
Unfortunately such a scenario requires an accurate assessment of personal skill to be valid and humans really suck at that.
Ability to assess personal performance directly has been studied a lot and people fail consistently at their ability to assess personal performance or “skill” as it were.
Results are generally highly varied and highly biased based on a number circumstantial factors that can change rapidly over a short period, making self assessment difficult to repeat and quantify and often beyond the realm of the individual.
It’s why good coaching makes or breaks athletes because an external assessment of performance is often required to garner genuine improvement.
Be brutally honest with yourself how often do you equate even minor success with your own skills and not just random chance which often plays a bigger role. We are all under the influence of our own ego and it loves to cloud our ability to judge ourselves.
-
@Marik1987 said:
Of course. You need 4 players for a match, on killer-side only 1.
Which means obviously, if 50.000 players are active, you need 40.000 survivors vs. 10.000 killers.
Its no surprise for me.
Basically this.
Its purely numbers and the numbers make sense. You’d need a really big skew in players to get a bonus for killer because it’s 4-1 per game.
But look at all these posts, it’s a collective of people who are clearly just unhappy, focus only on the negative or take it way to seriously and of course you’re having a bad time if you are doing these things. That’s like a bad time recipe.
We all love a sympathetic echo chamber but it’s rarely productive. If people genuinely feel this crappy over a game then take a break from it.
It’s not a job it’s a game you don’t have to play it if you don’t enjoy it. Exercise some common sense.
-
@Nihlus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3176514#Comment_3176514
I don't tend to enjoy kicking puppies. That's why I have never enjoyed killer. At this point, you've already shown your hand and your bias. Nothing you type is worth reading.
Again with the melodrama.
I realise what I’m saying is a rational view of the game which can be very confronting when all you want is to just throw a tantrum, but seriously can you not see how ridiculous you are being over a game.
Sheesh. To sum up you finish with a put your hands over your ears and say lalalalala move.
You don’t have to listen to me that’s the joy of this scenario, but you really should because right now your the kid on the floor screaming and banging host fists when you could be having fun playing a great game.
But I guess if you’re hell bent on having a miserable time then that’s what you are gonna have. Cest la vie.
-
@SailedSavage said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3176584#Comment_3176584
Majority consensus doesn't you are right
No it doesn’t, but you gotta be open the the highly likely possibility that you can’t blame this one on anything but your own misjudgement of positioning.
The video evidence you provide doesn’t do a great job of supporting your point.
But I guess anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t have any brains eh?
Put your ego back in its box, put on your big boy pants and own your mistake.
You’ll quickly see the only joke here is your overreaction to a mild misjudgement in a video game.
-
Hey if the situation calls for it I'm probably gonna do it.
Happily and that's perfectly fine.
I make no apologies for making sensible in game choices.
-
I'd say my escape rate is still about 50/50.
Played 5 games as survivor on the weekend and escaped 3 times so I guess that leave me on an undefeated streak of 3.
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3176333#Comment_3176333
This mindset is completely toxic and only makes me hate my teammates. If you think end game betrayals is fun, then I won't ever save anyone towards end game and let you all die because "they might betray me anyway"
This is a great example of the misuse of the term toxic.
The "hatred" as you put it for your team mates completely outweighs the outcome of some endgame shenanigans.
Basically toxicity exists when people can't separate the game world from the real world and they hate the other player over something relatively meaningless in game.
Don't let your in game emotion spill out into your real world that is genuine toxicity.
It does suck to be outed by your team mate if you are trying to avoid the killer, but unless its a determined effort by killer and survivor to collaborate, which is a reportable breach of game rules then its really not that common and not that big of a deal.
-
@SailedSavage said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175626#Comment_3175626
One of the few people here with a braincell
This comment about sums it up.
You're not here for an objective discussion about what happened, you're here for a sympathetic ear in an echo chamber.
The majority consensus about this vid is you weren't far enough over and I gotta say that looks to be the case, this one isn't on the game.
Remember most errors boil down to human error.
-
Because it works.
It's still possible to split pressure across multiple gens and smash them out relatively quickly.
Is also possible to out play a high mobility killer allowing gens to be completed.
But it requires team work and that is often severely lacking. Making slow down and high mobility killers a strong combination.
-
@Nihlus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175554#Comment_3175554
Right, but if I increase your pay by 10%, your hours by 10%, your bonuses by 10%, and reduce your bill payments by 10% and taxes by 10%, you have a crapton more money in your pocket each year, don't you? It all adds up. Those dials should have been tweaked maybe one or two at a time, not all at once.
What really happens was all of these things at once on top of the perks. Basically, survival now requires a killer to be absolute trash as he can sleep his way to a 4k in most games.
That is not a good way to frame your counter point.
If you are talking raw numbers the changes really are minimal.
-
@Nihlus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175740#Comment_3175740
Well, congratulations on enjoying Solo Queue. It's just a sandbox playground for killers to have fun.
I personally only ever have fun in custom games where the chance of getting sweaty or toxic people in my trial is nonexistent. Cannot wait for them bots.
Play killer then if you think its the only thing that's fun.
Its only a game best bet would be to stow the melodrama or play something else.
-
@Nihlus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175722#Comment_3175722
Incorrect. I equate Solo Queue to a pointless exercise in frustration. The only things that happen in solo queue are pain and disappointment.
Sounds like a bad attitude about the game to me.
But it’s easier to blame other stuff than to fix one’s self so if you want to keep making it a miserable experience for yourself you are more than capable of doing so.
I’m sure it’s the game’s fault 😉
-
@Nun_So_Vile said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175707#Comment_3175707
Despite the body count, just about every single one of the licensed killers has been bested by mere humans (even teenagers) in their own show, where they are way more powerful than their dbd counterparts. I'm actually going to add Freddy to my list because I am a lucid dreamer, so i'd whoop up on him for sport like in Dream Warriors with Dokken blaring in the background.
I’m not doubting they can be bested just if you are cocky enough to think it’s you who can do it then you are probably gonna die. its the nature of slasher flicks.
-
@Nihlus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175710#Comment_3175710
It's really not. You have to be a serious masochist to enjoy playing solo and being killed the overwhelming majority of games where you had no chance at the onset. Solo queue is an exercise in futility. It's like going to work at a job you hate. Except there's no pay and everyone is a D-bag.
If you equate playing this game to working dead end job then you take it way too seriously.
You always have a chance at game onset, but if you give up that easily of course you probably aren’t going to have fun.
This doesn’t sound like a game problem but rather a player mindset problem.
-
It’s pretty fun solo too, you just gotta not be a sore loser about it.
-
This reminds me of a real manly man who once asked me, who would win in a fight him or the crocodile in the enclosure.
I told him that it was a fresh water crocodile and they don’t tend to attack humans they typically pop their heads up see how ugly you are and run away.
Suffice to say his machismo didn’t like that answer. But others laughed.
Given the super natural nature of the killers I’d say every person here touting their ability to take one of them on is thoroughly boned and doesn’t even realise it.
-
@SailedSavage said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3175090#Comment_3175090
I don't need to be fully on the other side. I was closer to the far side than the killer side and even turned in that direction. I get vacuum sucked all the way back to killer side which shows you how close to the other side I actually was.
Nah I’d say you misjudged it this time.
Doesn’t look like a vacuum affect from the video, it looks like you are centre right of the pallet and it put you where you were. To the right of the pallet.
if you’re gonna camp a pallet be sure to camp it on the correct side.
-
I don't know if you were fully on the other side of that pallet.
That looked pretty legit from the video.
-
@kisfenkin said:
Let me play devil's advocate.
I find it fun to trap you in a corner while your teammates finish all gens and leave the game.
Should I be allowed to do that? Should my fun be ignored because one person found my fun, unfun?
I hope this blows your mind.
Fun is the balance that the devs should always be working towards. Since this is a game it is by definition made to be fun. That's it. if it is not fun for a majority, they are not doing their job properly.
That's not really playing devils advocate.
You can't take an extreme example of holding someone hostage, which is against game rules, and use it as a counter point to whether legitimate play is fun or unfun.
While fun is the point of the game it often leads to highly biased requests touted as balance because a large part of the community equate fun to winning. But having the game feel like you won every match is hardly balanced.
While the OP is taking the idea of "its not fun" as an illegitimate argument to the extreme they aren't far off given the very subjective nature of fun.
The fun of asymmetric play is that it can be very one sided, this isn't a fair game its weighted by strong solo mechanics vs teamwork. This is why you see swings in outcome between solo Q survivors and SWF teams.
Trying to balance that often creates a bland and generic game experience where outcome is dictated by RNG and nothing more, because everyone is equal. You can argue the skill angle but people always overestimate their own skill and success is driven by chance instead of capability in most cases.
People get hung up on balance and fairness equating to fun when the reality is, its the unfairness and imbalance of this game that usually results in the most fun for one side. i.e. Its fun outplaying a killer and repeatedly escaping a chase... its fun catching someone and mori'ng them out of the game.
If you go in with the expectation than any game can be fun even when it falls against you then you'll likely find even the unbalanced elements enjoyable, especially given the theme of DBD. If you expect your wants to be met every game in a balanced nature then DBD probably isn't the game for you.