thesuicidefox
thesuicidefox
About
- Username
- thesuicidefox
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/890909#Comment_890909
The matches you had during the events may have been "braindead easy" but that doesn't mean they were for everyone. You may have had more opportunities to play than others too. The events happened to fall at busy times for me and a few others I know so earning the event rewards involves finding time to play and trying hard to earn the event currency in the matches. Just because you found the events so easy doesn't mean everyone did. I was repeatedly matchmaked with coordinated groups who repeatedly sabotaged event hooks or teammates who did no objectives etc.
Everyone's event experience is different so statements like "IT IS EASY" are purely anecdotal and do not represent the entire community's experience.
It's less a case of they were hard to obtain, more so that they were very time consuming to obtain. Things like sabotage teams, poor teammates, DCing, bugs etc meant the events took even longer for some people.
I could say that I "really can't stand" your argument either but it isn't constructive nor worthwhile.
It was easy. You literally just play the game normally and do gens or get hooks. There was nothing special about what you did except MAYBE play a bit more than usual. Doesn't entitle you to get to deny others the cosmetic.
-
Depends on the killer and the map.
-
DS is fine.
If you got hit with DS one of two things happened:
1) You were tunneling.
2) The survivor purposely let you down them to DS you. You took the bait. Therefore you got outplayed.
It's really not hard to avoid DS. I slug like crazy when I expect a DS, going so far as to just leave the person on the ground to find someone else. Sometimes I just flat out eat the DS, especially if I'm Nurse or Spirit. Go ahead, DS me, I'll just catch you again in 10 seconds or less.
It's really not hard to get around.
-
Protip:
-
I would just left LOL. But only because of the challenge. I've done that sort of thing before if I found like a purple flashlight or key that I wanted to keep. Sorry guy on the hook.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/890357#Comment_890357
Because being able to pay for them and receive them instantly without going through the grinding and hours put into the event nullifies the value of the cosmetics for those that put countless hours into obtaining them.
It took a fair amount of dedication and resilience to earn the cosmetics during the events and that's what makes them special. They are unique and currently exclusive to those who worked to get them. Buying them instantly and without going through the event isn't the same as earning them in-game.
"Because being able to pay for them and receive them instantly without going through the grinding and hours put into the event nullifies the value of the cosmetics for those that put countless hours into obtaining them."
Dude just play the game normally and you get them. They really weren't that hard. I'm a survivor main, and I got both David's and Kate's event cosmetics in like a week's worth playing as much as I normally would. It was so braindead easy. Billy's was easy too. Huntress's would have been easy if the game didn't crash literally every match for me.
I really can't stand this "I worked so hard for them so no" attitude. You really didn't. If you had any dedication to the game normally these were super easy to obtain. Hallowed Blight were super easy to obtain, though a tad more challenging because it was a different mechanic. Withered Blight is even more challenging, but guess what? IT IS EASY!
Like tell me what you think was so difficult about getting these cosmetics?
-
I feel robbed of the Huntress Wolf Mask cosmetic. During that event it was literally impossible for me to play killer. If someone used an event offering there was an 70% chance my game would crash about 30 seconds into the match, and about a 10% chance it would crash during the load screen. Killer was UNPLAYABLE for me, and thus I was not able to earn the cosmetic. I got the survivor one, even though I still got crashes it was much less common (maybe 1 in 10 games).
I call BS on people that feel they "earned" these cosmetics. No you just played the game like you normally did and maybe had to go a tad out of the way to get special hooks or gens. You really didn't do anything special to get these skins. Same with BBQ event. It's not that special.
People like me were screwed out of the cosmetics because the game was flat out broken. How is that fair? Devs decide to give them out to everyone and people made a big stink because they worked SO HARD for them. Not really dude. Unlike Blight cosmetics, there is 0 way to unlock these outside the single event they had.
Either give them out for free like they said they would do or give us another way to earn them. It's total bullshit I lost out on this stuff, which I could have easily gotten had the game been at all functional for me. I earned 3 of the 4 cosmetics in question, I had absolutely 0 issue with people getting them for free. I even main Kate, sure give out the shirt I really don't care. But no, people have to be all entitled to something they "earned" which is nonsense.
Thanks everyone that was selfish.
-
@Lmronby said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/886837#Comment_886837
Or people want sensitivity; because Max Sensitivity on PS4 Is slow as Dicc
Especially when you're getting 360'd in a 15 FPS map
100 Sensitivity is plenty to turn on a dime.
What you should be asking for is aim acceleration because THAT will make it faster without requiring a full input. You get up to the 100 turn speed sooner. If they just up the sensitivity you will still have a slower startup to turning. That means it will be still be harder to react to a 360 especially with poor FPS. But with higher aim acceleration you can react faster. It'd also mean that you could turn down the sensitivity for characters like Huntress or Nurse that require better aim, but still get the benefit of having a high sensitivity via aim acceleration.
-
@Awakey said:
Honestly? I think this change was a huge mistake. She's even stronger in the hands of an experienced Spirit (yours truly), and the new prayer beads isn't that that bad. However, nerfing the Yakuyoke Amulet and the Hair Brooch add-on series was unnecessary.
Brooch feels mostly the same to me, but I agree on Amulet. It was completely unnecessary to gut it like they did. Just keep it as it was but reduce the numbers to match brown add-ons instead of yellow. Problem solved.
The other thing that bugs me most is post-phase speed curve. It just feels like you hit a wall and is janky AF. I was under the impression she would slow down over an extended period but I was wrong. It feels like crap. Maybe reduce the speed curve a little but this was overkill.
-
Lack of notifications. It was more fun to have to figure out what the killer was using. Now the game pretty much spells it out for you.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/888194#Comment_888194
It does look rather silly, however, I am sure they were rushed and simply found an animation that worked.
IIRC this is what the animation always looked like, but it was just hidden from the survivor's POV.
-
@SpaceCoconut I don't think normal Deep Wounds should have Exhausted or Hindered, however they should make it so that if you have Deep Wounds during EGC you suffer from Hindered as well. This would make it harder to just rip someone off a hook and run out the door, you'd have to do more to protect them or coordinate to open the door as late as possible.
-
You can still see the red stain while Oblivious. I distinctly remember a game against Oni today on Game where I dropped a pallet on him and was Oblivious and was able to still see his red stain. It helped a little in getting away, but what REALLY helped was Spine Chill. Clutch perk comes in clutch yet again.
-
I only played a few killer games today but I've been avoiding putting survivors in the basement because of how awful this bug is. I had it happen to me when I was survivor. I decided I'm only going to do it if I have no other option, but if I can I will hook away from the basement.
I only hooked 1 person in the basement and it was death hook so it didn't matter anyway.
-
@LordGlint said:
The difference between plauge making survivors louder while sick and deep wounds doing it is survivors arnt gonna be stealthing with a DW timer. They either mend or run, otherwise the timer drops. This means unlike sickness, survivors arnt likely to still have a DW timer when you find them later, therefore you'd never benefit from any antistealth mechanic.
The thing is if you stop to Mend in a nice hiding spot, the killer won't be able to find you if you have Iron Will. If your cries of pain were louder, it would make you more vulnerable during the Mending process. It'd encourage survivors to run until they are far far away from the killer before Mending, which means more wasted time.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/888183#Comment_888183
So it still looks ridiculous?
That is so disappointing. All they had to do was make it so she grabbed the vault ledge before phasing through so she couldn't fake it. I really, really wish they had gone that route.
I think it would have been cooler if she like phases through the window. Like it would be a very discernible animation where you KNOW she started to vault, but instead of vaulting she just kinda walks through it. It would look way cooler that way.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
I understand why they changed Prayer Beads. I understand that Yakuyoke Amulet was a strong add-on, but I don't understand why they nerfed it so hard. And I don't understand why they nerfed a dozen of her other add-ons.
I don't like that they took away collision in her basekit. If you can't track via sound, she's completely blind during Haunting. There were only two weeks during the past year+ I've been playing the game where audio was balanced in such a way that I could use sounds to track survivors. Otherwise, I'm always just playing a guessing game when phase walking.
Has anyone seen The Spirit vault, yet? Did they keep that ridiculous version where she crawls through the window like a monkey, or did they fix it so it doesn't look so comically awful?
I agree, the vault is total ew. I'm fine with giving her an animation but please God anything but that. It looks so bad.
@Pulsar said:
Overall, she's still good. I don't like the changes made to her post lunge speed, nobody asked for that.
Additionally, the changes to the Amulet offer you less overall distance, or so it seems.
Collision will be sorely missed.
The vault animation might not seem like a big deal, but it is huge at certain loops which can be run as nigh god loops on 110% Killers.
Yea right now it's just the post-phase lunge that bugs me the most. I didn't use Amulet much except for the past month when I heard it was going to change I used it a bunch because I just had a bunch of them.
Lack of collision is meh. I never really found survivors using collision and was able to track them just fine.
Amulet should have been nerfed but not this much I feel. Just decrease the numbers overall would have been just fine. What they did turned it into kind of a junker add-on.
-
@FriendlyGuy said:
Spirit is still strong. Be glad that she don't got buried like nurse. I mean they could've gave her a fatigue after phasing.
I agree. However some things just feel janky. IDK, maybe I just need to get used to it, but her post-phase speed curve feels like crap. I can still land hits and stuff but it seriously feels like the lunge post-phase is shorter than a normal lunge.
-
I'd be cool with it increasing cries of pain. Maybe if it also made your scratch marks last longer like an old Predator too.
-
@humanbeing1704 said:
I don't play spirit in anyway shape or form but I'm just glad old prayer beads isn't a thing anymore
I appreciate your input, but this thread is more for Spirit mains to discuss how the changes feel. Most if not all of us agreed Prayer Beads needed a nerf. This is more about the changes to her base power. Collision, vault animation, speed curve post phase, etc. Also add-ons that directly alter how power. I'd honestly like to leave Prayer Beads out of it because it's not changing the numbers on her power, it's more just a new effect.
-
If you check the "known issues" under patch notes they said he can turn more than he is supposed to (ie. flick). It's not supposed to be that way, so they are going to remove it. Chill.
-
I always thought if a DBD killer was put into Smash it should be Nurse. All he specials would be variations of the blink, her grab would be like a carry animation. She could be slow and powerful with a good recovery. Here Final Smash could be her mori.
-
@Horror_Gaming said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/886726#Comment_886726
So there is two things actually. Right now it says when a new survivor becomes the obsession their aura is shown to you for 4 seconds. When furtive chase creates a new obsession. The new survivor aura is not shown.
second. If the obsession dies furtive chase is no longer active. But when nemesis creates a new survivor. Furtive chase does reactivate But all your stacks are gone back to 0.
Nemesis only reveals the aura if the obsession change happens from the pallet stun/blind. I don't think it's supposed to happen if the obsession changes by other means, but the card isn't entirely clear so maybe this is a bug.
Furtive Chase though is definitely working as intended. Since it came out, if the obsession dies you lose all stacks. That's intended.
-
Stop asking for higher sensitivity. The sensitivity is fine.
What you should be asking for is aim acceleration. That makes a bigger difference than sensitivity. If you had both max I bet you would be able to 180 in an instant.
-
If you DC because you got slugged, you deserve a penalty. IDGAF if killer slugs everyone and you all bleed out. It's only 4 minutes.
-
Sloppy on Legion was kind of annoying TBH. Most Legions would do Sloppy + Thana and since he can so easily get hits on multiple survivors it was just a constant slog. You can still technically do this but you will need the Mangled add-on instead of Sloppy (which frees up a perk slot).
-
100 for both. Xbox. I play Huntress and Nurse pretty consistently at red ranks (main Spirit/Freddy).
Really you should just set it to 100 and play until you get used to it. Anything lower is going to make it tough to do certain things (mostly for killer, as survivor not so much).
More controller settings are coming according to the devs. I'm hoping this mean aim acceleration, inner dead zone, outer dead zone, and axial curves (ie. "square" aim, "circle" aim, "rectangle" aim).
-
The problem with trickle down balance is that 1) things don't scale how you think, and 2) DBD has a lot of variables in the equation.
Like just having the basement spawn in a certain spot, or getting a good totem location can change the outcome of the game. It's hard to account for that at ALL levels.
Stuff doesn't scale linearly. NOED, for example, is very strong for low-mid tier play but a bad perk for high tier play. The reason being high tier survivors know where to look for all the totems, and they know how to loop which makes NOED less effective when it triggers. Baby survivors panic and die because they just don't know how to handle it.
It's not a smooth transition either. NOED goes from overpowered to almost worthless in a very tiny period along the survivor skill curve. Like it's literally almost like a step on the curve, where the bottom step is OP and the top step is not a good perk.
DBD is too different from other games to apply these sorts of balancing philosophies. Just the asymmetrical nature alone makes that hard, when you throw in RNG and the wide variety of builds it becomes it's own beast.
I also think there is a limit to the trickle down balance. Overwatch is a good example of how this type of philosophy can actually hurt the game. Sure it's balanced well for high level play, but it kinda sucks for everyone else. While you want to eliminate the overpowered/broken stuff at the highest level, I honestly feel like that's ALL you should do. Once you start to balance the game around these players you lose the core audience.
A better idea would be a "two steps back" philosophy where you aim to balance around the good players (not the best) and then just fix the outlying issues for the top players where there are problems. I feel this would do a better job of handling the core audience, because the BEST players in the world DO NOT make good game designers. They can identify flaws in the core design, but you shouldn't be listening to them because they want a very particular version of the game that doesn't jive the the general player base.
Case and point, Gears 5. The devs brought in pro players to give design notes on the game. What ended up happening is they basically ruined the core experience. Sure it might work great for them, but a lot of veteran players didn't like the changes, even the subtle ones (including myself). It's just kind of a mess of a game. They HAD a great design framework from Gears UE. It was balanced for high level play, but still a great experience for the core audience. They could have made very minor changes to the design of the Lancer to make it a bit more user friendly (ie. it's a very strong weapon but only if you know what you are doing with it), and added new features to expand that design. Instead they basically scrapped EVERYTHING including all the design work from Gears 4 and just went in a totally different direction with trickle down balance that made the game feel like total #########. Like I was pretty happy with Gears 4 competitive tuning. If they just boosted Lancer and Gnasher a bit it would have been fine. The pros can still play a highly competitive game, and the normies get their game too. Gears 5 was made by competitive players for competitive players and everyone else had to eat a big fat ######### sandwich. It's bad design at the end of the day.
-
I like the idea of adding Blindness to basement hooks with MS, but the rest I'm not a fan of.
Someone previously said something like "it makes both basements spawn" which I thought was also a good idea.
If they did just these 2 things plus the current effects MS would actually be a solid perk.
-
To be fair, MCote was a baby killer when those matches took place, and the people playing survivor were really good. Also this was back when there was a LOT more in survivor's favor. Like any player in any game in that kind of situation is going to have a bad time.
I wouldn't really use those games as a talking point.
-
Hellspawn (Oni) - Sloppy Butcher, Coulrophobia, Distressing, Infectious Fright.
Basically you make it very hard to heal, and every time you down someone you find someone else. Extreme snowball potential.
-
@Yung_Slug said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/883039#Comment_883039
I'm tired of people comparing plague to T3 Myers. Myers has a faster vault speed and better lunge in Tier 3. Plague has nothing to help her end a chase faster if Survivors don't cleanse.
It also doesn't matter what state you are in.
If you are healthy you have a greater advantage against the Plague. If that means you had to cleanse, as long as you used a fountain far out of the way that's actually good for you. On top of that, if you over-cleanse and force her to take Corrupt by using all the fountains, you basically reset her entire pressure game. If you do this and hide for 60 seconds it's like her starting a new game basically
EW3 Myers, specifically infinite EW3, has far less counter play. It doesn't matter if you are injured or healthy, both states are effectively the same. You can't reset his one shots. And as you say he has better lunge range and vault speed. This makes infinite EW3 way way more powerful than anything Plague, except being fully sick when she has Corrupt.
-
@LordTohes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/882442#Comment_882442
4 But that is very different, nobody is discussing that, if he goes for a reason like that I understand, try to understand that I talk about the problems of the game and those that cause people to disconnect, I honestly do not play much as a survivor, You could say that I am main killer but seeing these things I can not blame people, I will definitely be against the creators of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yrPi_kLzD4
I am sorry it is very difficult to write from the cell phone, you can see what I speak on twitch or on youtube with better ease with current and recent games to see what is coming I feel a disconnection problem from the beginning of the game until the day from today
Still no reason to quit the game. Latency is something every online game has to deal with. Sure those hits are BS but you can still play the game.
The only time "technical difficulties" can be legit used as a reason to DC is if the game is completely unplayable. As in you can't even walk a straight line without rubber banding, or the game doesn't let you repair a gen or vault a window, or you get stuck somewhere with no way to get out. But getting a little lag where you got hit. Sorry suck it up and keep playing. That's how the internet works sometimes.
-
On Xbox the major issues is frame rate. It's not at all consistent and when an notification pops up you get crazy hard frame drops. I've literally been hit by a killer with Sloppy and had my camera do a complete 180 forcing me to run back to the killer, all while not even pressing a direction on the right stick.
As far as skill checks go, if you get a frame drop during them yea it sucks. But skill checks are client side AFAIK so are not affected by latency. If you are getting laggy skill checks it's the frame rate.
-
@Fibijean said:
Some people DC because of problems with the game.
Others DC because they're sore losers.
Fixing the balance issues will only solve the problem for one of the above groups.
There are definitely a lot of changes that need to be made to the game to improve player experience overall, but DC punishments definitely still need to be a thing.
I'd actually say MOST DC because they are sore losers. This isn't something new to games. Gears 5 banned several players FOR TWO YEARS because they were quitting like 80% of their ranked games when they started losing. While I find that a bit extreme, at the same time people like this just need to suck it up and take the L.
Literally 90% of the time when someone DC's when I'm killer it's from being found or chased first. Then another 5% play out the game until they are just about to die, then they DC to save their items (which normally you don't get to keep but they do a special trick I'm not going to explain here). 4% DC to give the last one hatch. The last 1% DC because I had Iri Heads or Prayer Beads or something.
So pretty much in every case, someone is being a sore loser. "Oh my gawd, the killer is using something OP/unbalanced. Oh no, I got Haddonfield as killer." Yea get over it. That's part of the game. Do we need better balance? Sure, won't deny that. But to quit for that reason is being a sore loser plain and simple. It's gross how often some people DC and the reasons they DC.
-
I honestly feel like it shouldn't matter where you buy it, you should get the same content regardless.
I'm having a problem right now deciding if I want to buy the $18 pack of auric cells to get ST characters for cheap and then buy the Rift for Nurse outfit (which I'd immediately get half back) or buy the ST chapter from the Xbox store for $4 more so that I can have access to it from my alternate account and for the extra content.
If you bought them through the game store, that should decrease the price in the Xbox store so that if I decide I want the extra content, I'd only pay another $4 for it in the Xbox store. I can understand them not being able to do such things from a technical standpoint, but it's kind of frustrating there are literally 2 ways to buy something and sometimes one is cheaper than the other, and then one is linked only to your account while the other is considered DLC and you can access it from other accounts on that home Xbox.
-
@MAV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881637#Comment_881637
My gosh, you nit pick on the minor details of my post and ignore the points that are relevant to the conversation.. not surprised as that seems par for course of your seemingly always right attitude and superiority complex because you " post a lot on the forums"... As for the relevant part of my post... It matters not what the rule says, people are still going to ######### and moan because most don't read the rules... And if people want to complain on the forums about breaking a rule that doesn't exist, ignore them... Explaining it like "body blocking with the intent of taking the game hostage" is immediately understandable without the need of reading a definition... "Intentional soft locking" needs a glossery/definition which will cause less people to know the rule... dbd Forum experience is irrelevant to knowing that fact... Perhaps a bit more life experience for you would help though :)
Sure. Whatever you say. You haven't been around here long enough to see how often this is an issue is my point. Will people still come here to complain? YES. There will always be someone to complain about something. Would separating acceptable body blocking and bannable body blocking via new terms make a difference? YES. It would significantly decrease how often this issue pops up and how often someone bends the rules to their agenda. But by using the word "body blocking" at all you create a situation where someone can say "they body blocked me and it's bannable". Hence why it is important to give it it's own term, to avoid that situation altogether where someone can intentionally or unintentionally skew the rule to mean something else. If it had it's own term they can't really do that. "He body blocked me" no he soft locked you, not the same thing.
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881637#Comment_881637
My point has always been if no one reads the rules like you originally stated and why the issue is present then how would they know what this would then mean?
Changing the name to anything else means making sure to inform people and then in turn they would need to read the rules on what it is which we have established doesn't happen and us the basis is why you thought of the change.
I understand completely what you are trying to do as I said before I just don't agree as the term body blocking is what the comminity has always called it.
Now if the game was just coming out id agree to it in principle as they could implement it from the start but changing it 3 years later won't stop people calling it what they know. This makes it so you end up with more than one name for the act which just confuses people more imo.
All they need to do is explain what the form of body blocking is in the end game report system.
Something simple like.
Bannable Body blocking offense - holding another player hostage in a situation for a prolonged period of time where the game cannot progress.
It's not rocket science and it doesnt have to be over complicated or confusing by using another name which the players need to look up for the definition as its self explanatory. It just has to be explained in a way which simplifies the only act which is bannable.
I can't see how anyone could take hook blocking or blocking someone in a corner to down them from above as they are not happening for prolonged periods or stopping the game from progressing.
"My point has always been if no one reads the rules like you originally stated and why the issue is present then how would they know what this would then mean?"
And my point is that it doesn't matter what they think it means, all that matters is they know it DOES NOT mean body blocking in the normal context. They don't go down the path of assuming ALL body blocking is bannable because it's not given the same name. THIS is the exact issue I'm trying to avoid. ASSUMPTION BY ASSOCIATION. And as several other have pointed out now, using a term to distinguish this sort of thing from that sort of thing is good for easy reference. All you have to do is say "killer soft locked me" and immediately everyone know exactly what you are talking about. No need to further explain the situation.
Regardless, like I said before we are just going in circles. The mods have come in here and explained they will be making these rules more clear. Whatever that means we shall see.
-
@Fibijean That's fine. Like I've said, if someone comes up with a better term I'd support it but so far I haven't seen one. Soft locking makes the most sense to me because of the fact you can't play the game despite the game still functionally as normal.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881439#Comment_881439
I try not to take the stance of "unless you play Nurse at high ranks, you don't understand her," but it's really true in the context of the cooldown+reappearance change discussion. By my estimation, there are 10% of survivors at red ranks who simply aren't going to be downed by this version of the Nurse unless they mess up. They're running one direction until you stop charging, they change direction as soon as you release, and then they make distance in the 0.3 second window. They've essentially taken much of the guess-work in open terrain out of the survivor side and kept it on the Nurse side.
From what I remember about how some Nurse mains explained it, your goal should be to land the first blink as close to the survivor as you can then use the second to make adjustments. While the tactic you mention does indeed work for a single blink, if you anticipate it as Nurse (or even just don't overshoot too much) you can use the second to still land a hit, and when you are very close the survivor has less time to react and less space to outplay you.
You know maybe if her movement speed during fatigue was a tad higher these minor issues would disappear. The fact you are basically immobile during fatigue I feel makes a bigger difference than the cooldown, because if you could move faster there would be more chances for you to just immediately use a blink to land a hit without the need for a second. Like a delayed correction.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881667#Comment_881667
It's only two more words. I wouldn't call that complicated.
I understand your point perfectly well, but as I said, I think it's essentially a matter of simple differences in opinion at this stage, and there's not much to be gained by rehashing the same points.
Well think about it this way.
You had a game as killer. You are pissed off you lost. You go to the report screen. You see "body block". How often do you think people read the rest? To some just saying "body block" would be enough. If those fabled words weren't there then this isn't an issue. People are sneaky and will "play dumb" to avoid false reporting penalties, or willfully ignore it to satisfy their ego ("I didn't lose because they outplayed me, I lost because they cheated and the words are right there"). That's kind of how I'm looking at the situation.
@TragicSolitude Gets it. 👍
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881654#Comment_881654
I still think that simply listing "body blocking a survivor" instead of just "body blocking" as a bannable offence will achieve the same effect with possibly less confusion, but I don't think quibbling over semantics is going to get us very far. The important part is, we're all agreed that some additional clarification is necessary, and based on what Mandy said we may be getting exactly that in the near future.
See but that's still not specific enough. If the killer happens to stand at a pallet or window such that the survivor can't use it, people would just assume that is bannable.
This is why I say it's just easier to give it it's own term. Less confusion with what is allowed (since most body blocking is allowed). "Soft lock" suggests being stuck in a place, which is really the main requirement for body blocking to go from allowed to banned. It honestly just makes life easier if you can refer to the entire situation in a single term, instead of explaining the entire situation each time. Simple is better, and having the whole explanation doesn't seem simple to me.
Semantics are very important with stuff like this when the line for what is and is not acceptable is paper thin. Again, refer to my murder V manslaughter argument. At the end of the day you killed someone. Period. But how exactly it happened changes a lot.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881637#Comment_881637
I think the only reason it hasn't helped is because most people don't go looking to see what the devs have to say about it before they report someone. They just go off what is written in-game. I suspect that a lot of the problem with false complaints and reports along these lines would be solved if there were simply more written clarity in the post-match report screen.
Possibly, but we can literally side step all of this by using a new term for specifically this action. Essentially, if you replace the words "body blocking" with "soft locking" or whatever new term we come up with that IMMEDIATELY negates a large chunk of false complaints because someone won't see doing X as the same as doing Y. Worst case scenario is someone doesn't know what "soft lock" means and looks it up as it relates to DBD. They will be less likely to make a false report, either intentionally or unintentionally, because we avoid using the blanket term "body block".
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881443#Comment_881443
You make my point.
You explain with this make porche (body blocking) and expand on it 911 for the model (not allowing play to progress holding them hostage)
Now if one said the above and stated body blocking and then said you soft locked me the rest of what I said would still need explained as like I said the correlation between the two terms mean nothing unless you know the actual meaning of soft locking itself.
If a person won't read the rules and is misinformed then why would a name change for an action make them suddenly do so?
I agree different terms help but only if implied from the start so what I am saying is when a term is used changing the name doesn't change what people will call it as its already know as what it is.
I'll give an example.
The post office. The UK changed it to insignia and did a huge campaign for the change, spend a lot of money on the changes of logos etc. It didn't last long as no one used the new name as the post office is what it was always called. They changed the name back after a short while due to that fact.
The same happened with star burst and ome people in the UK still refer to them as opal fruits decades later and that was done for logical reasons.
When something has had a name its very hard to change it and get people that are used to it to switch to something new just for the sake of it unless it makes more sense and is states something which is more logical.
All I am saying is the term soft lock isn't very logical to use as imo its a very generic term which had very broad meanings and would take a lot of time to educate people into using and then those that know the term start to use it for all glitches and bugs causing more confusion.
The act itself is body blocking and so its very logical to refer to it as that.
You can ask some one to get you a chocolate bar when at the store but it's only by giving more details do they know you actually want a snickers. This is why i stated that I think more details are whats needed with a better explanation on each act and what is and isn't bannable.
Look I get you like the idea and are very invested in it but I won't agree.
"If a person won't read the rules and is misinformed then why would a name change for an action make them suddenly do so?"
Because then they don't conflate one thing that is permitted with another thing that is bannable, when they are very similar but distinctly different.
If we assume no one reads the rules, if you use body block in both instances, it can lead to someone wrongly believing either both are allowed or both are bannable. This is evidenced by how often these threads pop up where someone cites the rules as saying "body blocking". Several people have done so in this exact thread. If they were two separate things, even if they share a mechanic, there would be less of this.
"I'll give an example."
You examples are flawed because we are not talking about a sweeping change to the entire concept of body blocking. We are talking about giving this specific instance of body blocking, the one that is banned, it's own term.
"All I am saying is the term soft lock isn't very logical to use as imo its a very generic term which had very broad meanings and would take a lot of time to educate people into using and then those that know the term start to use it for all glitches and bugs causing more confusion."
Again it's not about educating people. That is a different problem altogether. This is about preventing cross contamination if you could call it that. It's for those players that do not know the exact rules that may hear about body blocking and bannable offenses from unreliable sources. All the rules need to state is "soft locking is bannable". If the rule says "body blocking is bannable" that leads to people automatically assuming any form of body blocking is bannable.
"Look I get you like the idea and are very invested in it but I won't agree."
You don't have to agree with the name, I've said this. But it's clear you don't seem to understand the concept. You claim you do, but if you did you wouldn't be arguing with me. This is a very straightforward and simple idea that isn't at all about what you argue it's about. It's about the separation of one act from another. Hence my murder V manslaughter point. In either case you are still killing another person, but the context in which is happens makes a huge difference.
@MAV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/880553#Comment_880553
I don't waste my time reading posts that neglect common sense.. also yes only have 30 whatever posts, doesn't make my ~20 years of PC gaming or dbd hours less Relevant...
No matter what that rule says, people will complain and try getting someone banned because they annoyed them.. it's how the world works these days.. common sense proves supreme here, "body blocking" as a survivor to take a hit is a legit statragy... (Just like dropping all hooks and running to a corner used to be back in the day).. but blocking a survivor (as killer or survivor) with the sole purpose of trolling is bannable... Common sense dictates that if you do something to be a jerk and ruin the game for others 9 times out of 10 its probably breaking a rule... If you do something to gain a tactical advantage AND it's NOT glitching/exploiting, it's probably ok... Simple
Your gaming experience and DBD experience is irrelevant here, because I'm referring to how often someone comes to this forum and says something to the extent of "a survivor body blocked me as I was carrying another survivor, please ban them". Hence why I point out your low forum post count because you likely haven't been here long enough to see how often this issue pops up.
Furthermore your entire argument is irrelevant because we are not talking about whether or not trapping someone in a corner is bannable. It is. The rules say this. The devs have said this. A mod said this in this exact thread. The point of this thread is as I state above; to clarify the specific instance of what is exactly bannable by giving it it's own term that cannot be confused with similar actions that are NOT bannable.
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881460#Comment_881460
I was under the impression that all it says currently is "bodyblocking", which we're all agreed is too vague. If I'm mistaken and what I proposed is already written in-game (because I just checked and it's definitely not elaborated on in the Game Rules post on the forum) I'd appreciate it if you could link a screenshot of the current in-game report system for reference.
Possibly. I don't have the game open, and it may be worded this way on the report screen, but I definitely recall the devs making these exact statements elsewhere and it doesn't help. We need a separate term to define the bannable form of body blocking so that there is 0 way for someone to assume permitted body blocking is also bannable.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881436#Comment_881436
I'm on board with this metaphor. As someone who knows nothing about cars, the Porsche thing means nothing to me. But if instead of "my 911" you were to say "my Porsche with the [whatever makes the 911 unique]" then it would be much clearer what you mean and doesn't take much longer to say. That was the basis for my point above, that we could maybe solve the problem by keeping the term "bodyblocking" but elaborating on it slightly so that it's clear what is meant by it in context.
Again this is more or less how it is currently written and there is still confusion and disagreement about the rule. Giving it an entirely new term, even if the definition is just a longer explanation of something that already exists, would go a long way in resolving these problems.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881431#Comment_881431
Yes but if both cars are a porche and you always refer to them as a porche then suddenly you say my 911 (assuming the person doesn't know anything about porche models) then they don't have a clue what you are referring too unless you explain it.
Once the current system is explained people also know. That is what I am saying changing the name doesn't stop the questions or change how its perceived when they both mean the same act body blocking just with differnet stipulations so unless someone has to have knowledge of the rules in the first place.
Which you explain as "this specific model of Porsche, see how it's different". Now when you say 911 people know exactly which you are referring, and if you always refer to it as the 911 then say Porsche people will know you likely don't mean the 911.
If we begin to refer to bannable body blocking as "soft lock" or whatever else we come up with, then when someone that DOES NOT know the rules hears it they won't conflate it with normal body blocking.
Therefore I can be in a conversation with someone and say "I will body block for you" then later say "killer soft locked me" and they won't assume the first is also the second. But if you use "body block" for both, well now in the second part the person that doesn't know the rules will be confused because apparently one is okay and one is not, they will assume both are not okay.
This is how people think man. I did behavioral research during my capstone in college. Splitting the terms this way would make a significant difference in understanding of the circumstances for most people.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881316#Comment_881316
I get what you are to saying i just dont agree with it and my opinion won't change.
What I see is you cant explain what a soft lock is without saying its body blocking to the vast majority of players. That in turn leads to players who don't know the rules still having to be told the differnences between body blocking a hook and body blocking to keeping someone of a corner for a prolonged period.
The issue is body blocking is the term which had been used for years. Without the explanation referring to what people know it means nothing so my opinion is its a pointless change now. I feel most would think you are implying something else if you said it which means we are as it is now and it still needs to be explained.
I don't see why it matters that you have to explain soft locking as a form of body blocking. The specific type that is bannable.
If I have 2 sports cars, and one is a Porsche, I still have to use the term "sports car" to describe them both. But I only use the word "Porsche" to describe a specific one.
It's pretty simple. If you body block such that the player can't play the game it's a soft lock. If they can still play, it's just a regular body block. One is bannable the other is not. You don't need to explain this to people that have been playing the game because they know, only now they just have to start using a new term for this specific type of bannable body blocking.
And there is a point to change it now because people still argue over what is and is not bannable body blocking, and the game is still gaining new players.
Also technically speaking, a survivor body blocking a killer carrying a survivor or an injured survivor is a "protection hit". But the need for a specific term is less necessary here because it's allowed. The only kind of body blocking terminology that actually matters is the kind that is bannable; soft locking.
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881316#Comment_881316
I didn't realise you were so committed to "soft lock". I thought you were just suggesting that a different term be used because "body blocking" is too vague (which I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with, at least in principle). So I was just suggesting an alternate phrase that perhaps we could all agree on, since as others have already pointed out, "soft locking" may not be the ideal phrase to use.
I'm not, but you can't just append the word/phrase to include more words. This is basically how the rule is written currently which is the problem in the first place. If you want to give an entirely unique term, go for it. But calling it "body blocking with extra steps" is proven to not work.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881021#Comment_881021
Legion got nerfed. Making his mostly useless power slightly better, but taking away any synergy, is not a buff.
The Freddy rework was very good.
The Nurse changes were awful. Nobody asked for a basekit nerf and she feels miserable to play.
Spirit changes are weird, they are all fine, but I don't get the changes to the Amulet or her post-phase speed.
I feel like the post-phase thing was more QOL than a nerf. In theory, you should go the same distance over the same time, it's just more gradual instead of very abrupt.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881237#Comment_881237
I don't think you are reading what I said.
I understand completely what you are trying to do and i gave my opinion on why I don't see it making any difference as you still have to rely on people being informed.
The main reason you want it is so people understand what is bannable and my argument is people can understand what is bannable right now regardless of the name they just don't bother to read the rules.
As I said earlier the problem isn't the actual term used but the players not knowing the rules. What make a you think changing the name would change that?
You could call it a flugelbinder but if someone doesn't know the rules they won't know what you are referring too without explaining it.
If someone doesn't know the rules, and a term is used to describe multiple situations, they will ASSUME that all those situations are bannable. Hence why we have so often explain to people the difference between this body blocking and that body blocking, and why even when presented with these arguments people still say "well the rules say body blocking so both are reportable".
If someone doesn't know the rules, and these things have different terms, they won't assume the permitted action is also bannable. It's a separate thing. You can't say "well the rules say this" because the rules have a specific term for the bannable action.
The problem is not with the people that read and understand the rules, it's with EVERYONE ELSE. Do you see now?
@Fibijean said:
Why can't we just call it "body blocking a survivor"? That covers both instances in which body blocking is bannable - as a killer against survivors, and as a survivor against other survivors, while eliminating the instance in which it is never bannable - as a survivor against the killer.
If time is an issue, it could just say "body blocking a survivor for an extended length of time" or something.
Because that's the exact problem!
You say "killer is body blocking me" is not specific enough. Is it the permitted form or the banned form?
But then you say "killer is soft locking me" that IS the specific term for the bannable form of body blocking. You wouldn't use this term EXCEPT to refer to an instance when what the other player is doing can be reported.
Sorry but this is really triggering that you guys can't seem to understand this very very simple concept. Explain to me exactly what we lose by giving it a different term? People will have to look at the rules either way if they do not understand it completely. All we are doing here is avoiding the issue of people assuming the rules because the terms are vague.
If I go to McD's and just order "a burger" that is so incredibly vague it could be like 10 different items on the menu. But if I say "Big Mac" they know exactly what I want. No assumptions needed.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881122#Comment_881122
But soft locking is a generic term which already does mean lots of things from bugs to glitches along with mechanics. It is used for many things within many games.
These things can all mean you are soft locked.
Stuck in a pallet, can't heal, can't unhook, stuck in a locker, can't pick up an item, stuck on a part of the map etc etc each bug which means you can't progress or do something that is part of the game is classed as a soft lock.
To say it only means one thing in this game wont work as what is to stop those that know the actual definition using it for other reasons?
Ask yourself why would someone would immediately think of it as body blocking? If no one reads the rules it becomes a mute point and used for what most people who know the term believe it too.
If you tell me schmiggledeedorfing is bannable then I for one would look at the rules to find out what it is but I also looked at them and know the difference as it is now.
What is also to stop someone just googling the term soft lock and seeing no correlation to body blocking in the first place and just ignoring it? Never knowing until someone states the words body blocking?
Scenario one - you say they soft locked you and its bannable, they ask what that is and you say you body blocked me, they say thats not bannable, you say the way you did it by holsing the game hostage is read the rules or explain it.
Scenario two - you say you body blocked me in a bannable way, they say body blocking isnt bannable and you say the way you did it by holding the game hostage is read the rules or explain it.
Both mean they still have to read the rules or it has to be explained but the first scenario you have to also explain what a soft lock is in the first place defining the act itself. Since that it what currently happens without the extra step what does changing the term actually do apart from make it more confusing overall?
Sorry but I just see it as a pointless change of name which doesn't imply the act itself or even reference it without being told the exact meaning.
Dude I'm just throwing out a term that makes the most sense. "Soft lock" is when you can't play the game but the game continues to function, as opposed to a "hard lock" where the game just ceases to work.
The entire point of this thread is to say "we need a specific word for this action that is bannable" because calling it "body blocking" is not working.
And it doesn't matter if body blocking is part of the definition of a soft lock, because a soft lock is a specific kind of body blocking. Again refer to my manslaughter V murder explanation. The difference is subtle but VERY important. If I use the term "body blocking" to describe a soft lock that doesn't mean it's acceptable to call it a body block, because it's not that. It's a certain type of that. Same with holding the game hostage as there are several ways that can be done. Therefore soft lock is a combination of body block and holding the game hostage. It's not immediately meant to be considered body blocking, it's meant to deter people from using the words "body block" in the context of a bannable offense, because those words can refer to several things.
And I mention we could add the word "intentional" or "malicious" in front of soft lock to distinguish it from soft lock bugs where no one is at fault. If you get stuck in a locker, me as killer is not responsible for that and therefore you can't report me. If I stand so that when you exit the locker you can't move, THAT is what is bannable.
We are going in circles here. You are looking way to hard at this for a reason to not use a new term when the reason to use a new term is simple; SPECIFICITY. That is all I have left to say.
@ba_tetsuo said:
What you’ve described as soft locking isnt actually bannable unless they’re the last survivor and egc hasn’t triggered. Lets say I soft lock a survivor in the corner. There are 3 other survivors who can do gens, open the door (triggering the egc), and leave. Then the trapped survivor dies to egc. The game still has a path of progress to end for all players
"A survivor holding another survivor in the corner for example is classed as Body Blocking, this would be punishable as they are preventing active gameplay, they are not however taking the game hostage cos the game can still end due to EndGame Collapse." - MandyTalk (see above)
So even if the game can end, the act of preventing another player from playing the game is still bannable. If you do it for 10 seconds you're not really impeding someone's ability to play the game. If you do it for 10 minutes though, then you definitely are.
I picked "soft lock" because it most accurately describes the situation, and doesn't use the words "body block" because in doing so you just create confusion. It needs it's own term.
If any of you have a better term please post it. Otherwise stop with the "it's not REAL soft locking" stuff because it doesn't do anything to solve the underlying issue.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/880969#Comment_880969
That was my point.
If no one reads the rules then what would the term soft lock change?
If it's confusion over body blocking meaning more than one thing then changing it and then referencing body blocking under the term soft lock won't change anything as the wording of body blocking still needs to be present in the details.
I can't see how making it even more confusing by adding that term as it doesn't imply the act so wont stop any questions when just leaving it as is while detailing better what is and isn't bannable does the same thing but better imo.
The terms you mentioned are all fair and well but they still need people to read up on what they mean or be told. That's the main factor as without being Informed no one knows the difference and in conversation those terms would be simplified by those not in the know of the terms too "they killed them in self defense" or "they killed them by accident". They then know exactly what happened without the need to use the official term used by the law.
Using a generic terms doesn't change what people will say and I would say in this instance it would just cause more confusion as I highly doubt anyone would say after a game "you soft locked me that is bannable" as it doesn't state what they did. They would still just say "you body blocked me that is bannable".
I just don't see the need to convolute it.
Because body blocking can mean several things. Soft locking can only mean 1 thing.
You are less likely to get conversations like "the killer body blocked me therefore they should be banned" because you aren't using the same term for different meanings.
If a term is unknown to someone that's good because at least then they have to look it up. You can't mix up the term of something bannable with something that is permitted, because the only use of said term is to reference a bannable act.
If I tell you "schmiggledeedorfing" is bannable, how in the world can you either confuse this with something else or assume what it means? Worse case scenario you raise your hand and ask what it is. Since it would probably be a very specific thing now you know exactly what's acceptable and what's not.
Now I say "action" is bannable, how would you interpret that? Would you actually seek out the rule for clarification or would you just apply it to whatever you want? More than likely it would be the latter. People exploit this kind of ambiguity, either on accident or on purpose, so having more clearly defined lines in the sand is important.