ratcoffee
ratcoffee
About
- Username
- ratcoffee
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Never understood the mentality of having people do something you see as toxic, experiencing how bad that feels, and saying "I want to inflict that bad feeling on other people by doing something similar"
-
My gut reaction to this was "no way" but thinking a little more I think it's actually a decent suggestion. It's not perfect but it's definitely worth considering novel ideas like this.
My personal main concern is that this seems to directly buff the bully squad strategy of having 3 people harassing the killer and the 4th on gens. I like playing against teams that do that, but I know a lot of people who don't.
-
Why does it matter? Grade used to be used for matchmaking, so it made sense to have people Grade down, but now we have MMR so Grade is only used for BP rewards (and isn't even visible to anyone else).
You used to be able to pip down if the killer was AFK or your teammates gave up. It's good they removed a situation where people got "punished" (admittedly only mildly, just with gameplay rewards being slightly more grindy) because your teammates or opponents refused to play
-
Pretty sure the stats BHVR release always ignore games with DCs unless they changed something
-
I'm torn on this.
On the one hand, I think the song and dance (literally) with teabagging survivors at the exit gate is annoying and BHVR should do something to address it.
On the other hand, BHVR are taking measures to stop people from quitting early out of games they think they lost (go next prevention); it seems odd to ask for a feature to end the game before a decisive condition just as they seem to be signaling a desire to go away from that, and especially since that other "don't leave early" function seems to have high support from the community
-
It's usually for events and they usually only announce it a little bit before it starts
-
@CrossTheSholf said:
The artist nerfs (cause that's what they honestly are) are baffling to me. What did she do to deserve this?
She stole my wife :(
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3935436#Comment_3935436
And yet its still not enough. Try watching a comp game where the killer is playing trapper.
Killer designed to exploit scenarios where there isn't survivor communication struggles in scenarios where there is survivor communication. Story at 11
Seriously, if "sometimes the game is hard when entering a scenario that is explicitly unfavorable" is the best you can offer for scenarios of imbalance, it's really hard to take this in good faith
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3934932#Comment_3934932
Wow, look at you coming off all high and mighty. Let me make one thing clear: I don't DC on a regular basis. I'm simply pointing out that stuff happens. To all of us. Completing 20 matches in a row is only a herculean task for some people because they don't play for eight hours a day like you do. Unlike you, I have a life, and I have a full-time job. And if I can't play because my DC penalty builds up because of things outside of my control and I don't have time to play enough matches to decay the penalty, then there's no reason to play anymore.
I hope you're happy about that.
I mean I get what you're saying, but in some other games I play, an abandon rate of 2-3% is considered a "severe and chronic problem" with abandoning. Many people in those games have thousands of matches played with at most low double digits of abandoned matches. I sincerely hope you're just incorrectly estimating the number of matches you need to abandon vs. the number you play, because if you're leaving more than 1 in 20, that is kind of on the high end of abandon rate.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3934052#Comment_3934052
I wonder how many people will get that reference!
There's gotta be at least 2 things that could fit the bill because the one I immediately thought of was Crossroads (1986) but that's about a guitarist and a harmonica player
-
This is gonna be kind of harsh but I want you to be realistic. I only skimmed through 2 of your videos, but they were both long compilations of regular 2v8 gameplay without commentary.
First of all, hour long videos for a beginning channel are almost never the way to go, unless you already already have an extensive background in video production. You should focus on 5-10 minute max content to start. Doing this should make part 2 a lot easier.
Part 2 is, people aren't going to want to just watch gameplay, they want something else to go along with it. That something else can be banter and jokes, it might be you discussing your opinions on recent game balance changes (recorded in voiceover), or it could be decision making analysis if you play at a high level. It could even be something I haven't thought of yet - point is, people aren't gonna be interested in raw unedited gameplay with nothing added to it.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3932570#Comment_3932570
Does that mean a SWF can bring 1 luck offering, and the SWF can Go Next if one of them dies early?
TBH if that's such a concern, just let people in a 4 swf surrender if one of their teammates die (count it as a loss)
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3933810#Comment_3933810
I am not quite sure what this has to do with my post? Or am I completely missing something here?
I think they meant to reply to someone else who thought botany gave 6 (not 16) sec heals
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921566#Comment_3921566
I have faced this sort of petty "well we're just gonna hide and hold you in the round as long as possible because there's only two of us left and we don't want to give you ANY amount of a win so there!" before. It's not common but I have seen it.
I mean I guess that does happen, but IMO that's slightly different from what I'm talking about.
We're talking about the killer entering the game from minute 0 with the intent of defending the closest 3 gens in order to abuse the 10 minute timer, and whatever the analouge of that would be for survivor gameplay. In that case it would be the survivors entering the game from minute 0 with the intent of avoiding both killer and gens in order to abuse the 10 minute timer.
The analogue to survivors hiding when there's only 2 of them left is: the killer being very defensive of a 3 gen the survivors have naturally created of their own according and miscalculation. Annoying, but IMO not a clear abuse of the system. At least, that's how I'm approaching this discussion
In any case it's the scenario of "survivors load in with the intent of just avoiding the killer and never touching gens until they abandon" that I see no evidence for
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921553#Comment_3921553
😂 I'm not upset about anything, I'm just saying the difference between the 2 scenarios.
Scenario 1. Killers used abandon feature to get free wins by using a tactic which to my knowledge that isn't banable and even has a hard counter via the basekit kick limit (3 gen).
Scenario 2. Survivors use abandon as justification and incentive to commit a banable offence (hiding avoid gens trying to grief the killer into DC).
Both sides use abandon feature beyond its original intent causing unfun and unfair game mechanics. But 1 side is using it to commit a banable offense while the other didn't.
I have to be careful what I say here but for players that play both killer and survivor... They could and did use the abandon feature to their benefit as killer..they can, will and do use the fact the killer gets a loss if the killer can be pushed to abandon via hiding as survivor.
Gonna be honest man, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest anyone on the survivor side is intentionally aiming for a stall out victory
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921477#Comment_3921477
We all agree that hiding avoiding gens is a banable offence. Is it banable for holding 3 gens?
IDK, you're the resident expert on bannable offenses from killer gameplay 🧟
All joking aside, the point is not what is technically punishable by means of a ban. The point is what makes for interesting gameplay for all sides. In fact I think the fact that infinite hiding is bannable strengthens my point - why are you getting upset at a "stall out win condition" that doesn't actually exist, right after defending and advocating for a real "stall out win condition?"
-
I'm really confused by this thread.
I'm seeing a bunch of people in here saying that survivors choosing to hide and not do gens is an automatic win button for survivor, despite the fact that it requires the killer, not the survivors, to choose to press the resign button - and if they don't, than the survivors lose out on more time and lose the game.
However, I saw those same people defending the strategy of holding a 3 gen for 10 minutes and then pressing the "resign" button as a fair win condition for the killer.
What changed in the last week that caused so many people to realize that intentionally stalling out the game isn't a fun win condition?
Now, I agree that stalling out the game isn't a good win con for a game like DBD. I personally have never seen a team of survivors go for a stall-out victory, so it's hard for me to imagine that happening, but a bunch of other people insist it's a real threat, so who am I to judge. In any case, if I recall correctly, the devs have said they're hoping to rework idle crows so they're more likely to spawn on people who aren't doing anything useful. Hopefully that'll help combat the threat of survivors spawning in and refusing to do gens that a bunch of people have promised is totally real.
-
@YmPrat said:
So if I wanted to just hide for 10+ minutes with a swf we'd win every game by refusing to do gens and aggravating the killer into using the abandon mechanic? That doesn't seem right to me, why are you encouraging survivors to refuse to touch gens by making it so they can win without anyone every touching a gen?
That's a bannable offense and people on Twitter have posted about being banned for it
This is specifically to prevent the scenario of a killer intentionally holding a 3 gen from the start of the match as a win condition
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917948#Comment_3917948
IMO Medkit-Tiers should be removed anyway. There is barely any difference between Medkit-Tiers. Before the Nerf, there was at least some difference:
Brown —> Good for one HealYellow —> A bit more charges
Green —> One heal, but really fast
Purple —> Charges for two heals
Nowadays the charges are all the same, but the Medkits differ slightly from each other with 5% of difference in Altruistic Healing Speed. And this is not enough for me to warrant having 4 Medkits.
IMO the Survivor-Bloodweb is in need of an Update for a long time since it features 3 times as many different Items than the Killer-Bloodweb and many are redundant due to Nerfs or Changes. And having 4 Medkits which are basically the same is just the tip of the iceberg.
IMO they need to introduce more things to distinguish the medkits
Purple medkit - give it a charge efficiency bonus while alturistic healing, making it strong for Medic builds by letting you get 3-4 full, fast alturistic heals off with a best in slot kit
Green medkit - reduce the amount of self-heal speed penalty. having a kit that can get you a self-heal a little faster would be good, though make sure it doesn't go back to how ridiculous self heal builds used to be. make it like 20 seconds instead of 24.
Yellow medkit - maybe more frequent skill checks and slightly more healing from greats? lemon kits didn't used to have their own identity, but it'd be cool to have something that distinguishes them from brown at the very least
Brown medkit - give it bonus BP on skill checks or something. if you've got a brown medkit you need the extra BP
-
WOOOO NEW STATS
Pretty cool that new Freddy is doing good in high mmr. I'll leave any further commentary for later since I'm near the end of my lunch break, but any new stats are welcome :)
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915260#Comment_3915260
How is it wishful, when devs already announced it is going to be addressed?
There's 4 different things mentioned there, which is the "it" you are talking about?
-
@Bodark said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915217#Comment_3915217
As soon as we start punishing survivor for throwing on hook we won’t really have to worry about that aspect too much. Start with a 30 minute ban for throwing on hook and problem solved.
We’re already about to punish killers for slugging, tunneling, proxy camping and camping.
The proper way to get stats on how good a killer is would be how many gens are popped before their first hook.
We’re already about to punish killers for slugging, tunneling, proxy camping and camping.
That's some very wishful thinking. Only thing that's punished there is camping (I assume when you just say camping you mean face camp, to contrast with proxy camp which you also bring up)
-
@Bodark said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3911871#Comment_3911871
It’s 15 seconds of 25% haste btw. It needs to be nerfed into the dirt.
I’ll remind you Hex NBM is a literal Hex perk that is only 5% for 15 seconds
Where does it say 15 seconds of haste? Looks like 6 seconds to me
-
Edit: I am realizing I misread the description of that one perk
-
Edit: never mind. Nothing nice to say, don't say anything, etc
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3910388#Comment_3910388
ye I just don't see how it's relevant. But it's nice the Devs introduced the surrender option... That must mean it's bad decision based on previous posts I made apparently? That what your getting at?
Exactly - you're so good at finding unintended gameplay it got you a ban from this forum.
The devs said they intended the surrender option as a part of anti-slug efforts.
If The Guy Who Finds Unintended Stuff is telling them that the thing they wanted to be anti-slug is actually pro-slug, that is extremely valuable information to have. I'd trust your feedback more than any other user on this forum when it comes to that particular aspect of the game precisely because of that history
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3910377#Comment_3910377
i don't see how that's relevent to what I'm saying about slugging. also I said what I said mainly to highlight a fundamental flaw in the game. Strangely enough, since then that flaw has now been addressed with the surrender option.
feel free to carefully reread and consider each word of what I said; I've already explained why your history is relevant to the post
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3910366#Comment_3910366
It is intended gameplay, slugging is a legit tactic. Slug em, hook em. Survivors didn't like being forced to wait 4min, now they don't. Devs gave survivors what they asked for
I was talking about that time earlier this year when you got banned, very coincidentally just after you said your new strat was "don't chase survivors, just guard gens"
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3910317#Comment_3910317
Like they stepped in with slugging? By not preventing it but allowing killers to do it and giving survivors an option to admit defeat when all are slugged?
Dev team need to read this post I think, and then contextualize it within this user's post history.
Player who has a history of being doom-and-gloom that any change will be anti-killer, and for advocating for killer players to the point of being banned for [to public speculation] accidentally taking it too far with encouraging unintended gameplay, seen here citing the so-called "anti-slug part 1" as proof that the devs intend for slugging to stay as a mechanic. What does that mean for your design decisions?
-
@danielmaster87 said:
The Pentimento and Houndmaster changes were really out of nowhere. Pentimento being worse basically kills the perk, and any builds associated with it like the Plaything one. Now survivors can cleanse hexes with basically no fear. Houndmaster's dog vaulted fast, because if it did it slower, it would be like baiting Wesker's power at a window, where the survivor has control. If it was faster, the killer gets them with the dog basically every time, but now that it's gonna be slower, a survivor can bait window and force the Houndmaster to miss with their dog, because if Houndmaster waits to react, the survivor makes the window. And who was complaining about any of this?
I don't know what the plan is. BHVR treats players as an inexhaustible resource. "Who cares if our dedicated veterans have had enough and leave? Tokyo Ghoul! More players! FNAF! More players!" They're hoping it'll just go on forever, recouping their losses with new players. But at some point the game is gonna get the same reputation as CSGO or League Of Legends or Overwatch, and then it will die. Either it'll be considered a sweaty game with an overly toxic community, or just a trash game. Already, if you ask us what's the most toxic game community, it's DBD, or DBD is in the top 3. Now, I was gonna go on a huge tangent about toxicity in the game, but it always became too "us vs them," so I relent this time. Basically, the toxic survivors (not saying all survivors) think they're validated in being toxic to killers by default, because the nerfs against certain strategies like gen defence or slugging coincided with their belief that anyone using those strategies were being 'toxic,' and couldn't possibly be doing it just to win. The killers respond by being toxic to survivors by default, and the cycle goes on.
A simple matchmaking fix would improve the solo survivor satisfaction by leaps and bounds. It'd be like, "Whaaat? Teammates who actually do the objective? Amazing!" Or for the casuals: "Whaaat? A team of learners going against a killer who's also learning? No way!" And, in my opinion, the game's survivor sidedness, because of the base math of the game, would start the be revealed, so killers would start getting buffed finally. Survivors would be happy, killers would be happy, and then we could finally have a discussion on the disparity between solo and SWF.
But apparently the devs don't want that. They'd rather have players believe that they're each other's worst enemy, rather than the matchmaking that guarantees them a bad and inconsistent experience no matter what role they play. Survivor needs a matchmaking fix to be fun. Killer needs a balance fix to be fun. Let's get it over with already.
Famously dead game League of Legends
-
@danielmaster87 said:
So a smidge more than a draw, on average. With almost a third of his matches being 1k or 0k.
I gotta hand it to you, your ability to frame "wins over 50% of their games and loses less than a 30%" as being disadvantagous, is unparalleled
-
the P100 reward is the P100 badge
-
@ChuckingWong said:
Uh when they do challenges I guess? Like the hardcore challenges they purchase different copies of the game.
Which lets you in on how its … A BITTTTT unfair when you realize they are starting at baby MMR.
Still a hard challenge for sure cause soloQi mean in [Name Redacted]'s most recent Solo Hardcore series he went up against a Prestige 100 killer within his first 10 games. obviously prestige != skill but anyone who's got p100 has probably played enough to go above the soft cap, meaning the content creator in question very easily could have hit softcap within 10 games
gives you an idea of what the matchmaking's like.
that's actually something I'm curious about, now that I think about it. Would love if someone with inside knowledge could comment - is there some sort of uncertainty factor that causes new accounts to gain MMR more quickly if they win all their first handful of games?
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
I don’t think that’s even mathematically possible unless they were cheating
The world record fastest escape is 2 min 45 seconds. It's possible with 4 toolboxes and incredibly precise gameplay against killers like trapper
That said, it needs to be a very skilled and very specific type of survivor group and it needs to be a killer that is particularly bad at dealing with that kind of strategy
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3899583#Comment_3899583
No, it's just that for some reason BHVR thought it would be a good idea for them to take a swing and come to a dead stop, regardless of it they hit the survivor or not. And then their cooldown on that attack had to be long as well, because reasons. It's the same process of a survivor actually gaining distance on a killer by 360ing.
Think of it this way: if a survivor makes a mistake, obviously they should be punished, right?
Then, if a killer makes a mistake, it should also be possible to punish that killer's mistake.
-
yeah, I feel like a lot of people have learned to assume the worst in others with this game. real tragedy
-
@xCakeStick said:
It works as intended. Yours and the killer ping are also a factor when it comes to this.
Well then intend something different!
-
probably would be august but I foolishly thought "people will be pleasant for the winter event"
people were pleasant for exactly one (edit: sorry, it was two; one farming and one non-sweaty normal game, still disappointingly few though) of the dozen or so games of the winter event I played
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3893340#Comment_3893340
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3893341#Comment_3893341
Because it makes no sense. People are always trying to do mental gymnastics and redefine what "casual" means in this game. No other game's community says, "Balance for casuals." Because it's silly. You're going to pretty much abandon the most skilled, most dedicated players, so that the ones who have no clue and are liable to drop the game a week after buying it... "can have fun." What?!
And the most of the time, the argument only goes one way. That's the infuriating thing about it. "They deserve to have fun." What about the competitive ones? They're supposed to make all the sacrifices, and the noobs don't have to make any? Because that's literally what this game has been for like 4! years! And where are most of the noobs? On survivor.
So killer has to pay, most of the time. Solos, too, but matchmaking is deemed "fine," so nobody talks about that core problem either. Their view of balance is so skewed, because they will not or cannot think about how the average match plays out... when everyone's playing well. At most, they just chef mumble their way through hypotheticals, like "Eh, the survivors' always got weak link, so killer tunnels em out, gens don't go, people go down too quick, killer wins easy," and they never question what the survivors are doing wrong.
I mean, you literally get survivors who don't go down, or might as well have wall hacks, at a certain MMR. What's their secret? Playing well, game knowledge, experience. In all other games, those are things expected of players before they even think about speaking on balance. Not here though. Everyone is weighted equally, so that a 10-hour player has just as much of a weigh-in as a 10,000-hour player, except the 10-hour is "more equal" because more people (other 10hr players) agree with him, and he's a casual so his requests take priority, because his fun matters over everything else.
You know what I'm saying?
"Game is fun to play, for all sides, at the low level" and "Game is fair and balanced at the high level" are not contradictory and in fact must coexist for a game to be successful. If you only care about balancing for people who have 10k hours in the game, you will never retain anyone long enough to build up the hours required to enjoy your game.
You seem to suffer from the false impression that people are ontologically either a 10 hour player or a 10k hour player, like they spawn into existence with a certain number of hours played. A 10k hour player was once a 1k hour player, was once a 100 hour player, was once a 10 hour player. If that 10 hour player doesn't enjoy the game, they never become a 10k hour player.
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
The down vote on the post above me is flippin wild
ikr? I'm just sitting here cackling trying to imagine the thought process
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892831#Comment_3892831
If you believe that about the game, then why do you care about it being balanced? That's an oxymoron, no?
People who play video games casually deserve to have fun too
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3893019#Comment_3893019
I never said 0% changes will benefit killers. I said the anti-slugging project, that's literally supposed to be a multi-phased project, is so far 100% survivor sided, with 0% announcements, or anything to imply that killers are ever going to get anti-slugging things in their favor.
And the map offering thing hurts both sides of the game. Some killer builds are just plain awful if you can't choose a map. And it still heavily favors survivors, because if they pick 4 separate maps, it's still a 1 - (.8*.8*.8*.8) = 59% chance they get a map offering they want, compared to the 20% the killer gets when they bring a map offering.
And we already know that "adjustments to the kill rate" are sometimes just flat number buffs, with zero quality of life improvements. Kill rate adjustments are sometimes literally slightly faster kicking speed, which is a zero quality of life improvement.
Because that is how these balance changes sometimes work. Survivors sometimes get real quality of life improvements, and killers are just promised a certain kill rate, like it's a giant present that killers should be grateful for, as opposed to something necessary for the game.
They didn't say you said you said "0%"
They said you said 0 of the currently announced changes. Because they were directly quoting you. They went on to argue why some of the changes would benefit killer specifically within the context of slugging - for example, that now survivors have at most a 20% chance of pulling off The One Consistently Unhookable Situation left. Also, survivors being able to get one of the maps they want 58% of the time if they all 4 coordinate is objectively an improvement from being able to get a map they want 100% of the time for the cost of 1 offering (from the killer perspective)
If you want to reply with some stinging retort, please instead log off for a bit and practice self care. You're getting so involved in arguing that you're not actually engaging with the words that are there
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892990#Comment_3892990
I never said knock out should have remained the way it was.
What I am saying is that if slugging is a problem that needs to be fixed, it should be fixed on BOTH SIDES of the game. But when BHVR nerfs Knock Out, and allows survivors to surrender early when everyone is slugged, it's basically only fixing the problems that negatively affect survivors.
BHVR could have easily made or announced anti-slugging things that would benefit killers, that would help reduce the frustration that happens when killers are repeatedly forced to slug. But none of that happened. Badham + basement in shack, is still a super grief that survivors can do. Any all the other ways that killers can be forced to slug is still fully intact in the game.
I mean, hooks respawn now. Several maps have had hooks added in previously unhookable areas such as the upstairs area in Ormond. I think you're forgetting a lot of the stuff BHVR has done to combat survivors trying to make themselves unhookable. Even if that weren't the case, flaming people for being glad that BHVR are addressing annoying unfun gameplay doesn't seem like the smartest way of addressing annoying unfun gameplay
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892894#Comment_3892894
When survivor burn a Badham offering and a "basement in shack" offering, they are going into the game with the intention of purposely hanging out in the school basement, where it's literally impossible to get them to a hook.
But for whatever reason, that's not considered unhealthy even though it's literally 100% being done to grief the killer. However, if killers try to slug for the 4k, it's demonized and considered unhealthy for the game, even though they're literally doing it to raise their kill rate.
Just want to gently remind you this is a thread about a knock out nerf
-
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892668#Comment_3892668
Iron Will, Flashbang, Deceisive Strike. Three top 20 perks that have been given blanket buffs. Made for this + We're gonna live together as the new FTP Buckle Up (they had to instantly nerf it a bit because of how much they overbuffed it and its still super strong), Resurgance is now almost a free heal of the hook, Babysitter makes the unhooked person outrun the killer at times, Background Player had its cooldown cut in half,
Dead Hard and Off the Record buffs have just been announced a few hours ago.
Flashbang is top 20 because it's fun
The other two got buffed as compensation for being over-nerfed, and are still weaker than they were before the original nerfs. Conveniently those over-nerfs happened just outside your chosen time frame
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892826#Comment_3892826
It's a competitive game tho
...no. League is a competetive game. SF is a competetive game. DBD is a casual game that some people sweat at
-
it's not a competetive game tho
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892214#Comment_3892214
Weren't the best survivor perks nerfed overall this past year?
Adrenaline and Distortion were nerfed in this past year, at least. Which of the best perks were buffed? I'm drawing a blank there.
It was perks like Ace in the Hole and No One Left Behind that got buffed. You know, the really broken OP abusable stuff
-
There's usually 2 PTBs in a 3 month period I thought, the chapter update and the mid chapter (though new content is being pushed back for now, a worthy sacrifice IMO)
This PTB is the first of two during the Phase 1 time frame. I'm betting the stuff in there not addressed by this will be in PTB part 2
-
@MarbleThrone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3892526#Comment_3892526
To be fair I am going to miss it even though I didn't use it for griefing purposes. I run Knock Out on Nemesis alongside Brutal Strength, Enduring and Pop just to get that 'hulking brute with a strong punch' vibe going.
Guess I have to find something to replace KO now, like Fire Up or Iron Grasp or something along those lines.I always swear by Coup de Grace. Solid chase perk and keeps with the superpowered punches theme