twistedmonkey
twistedmonkey
About
- Username
- twistedmonkey
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,349
- Last Active
Comments
-
Nice one wiki man! Congrats 😁.
-
@AshleyWB said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895132#Comment_895132
It's kinda a broad statement across these kinds of threads. The person making them consistently get a lot of uncalled for abuse from pretty much 80% of people and the way some people talk here is kinda revolting.
In this thread in particular there is a couple of disrespectful comments being made and I'm just saying understand what you're talking about before scolding people creating new discussions.
While I agree there is no need to be rude the OP has sort of contradicted themselves. The op itself doesn't say much apart from they want the event skins. They then stated they had earned the event skins and lost them which they were told they will get back by the dev. Then they argue why can't they have them? After being told it numerous time which makes you wonder if the statement about having earned them was true.
I am one who thinks they could just make a way for them to be available on the store so people can purchase them to make all event skins past, present and future consistent. It's not my decision though and I will respect what the devs decide as it up to them at the end of the day.
They give out 14 free skins which they didn't have too and could have profited from but it's still not enough for some and quite frankly I feel its very rude for the player to demand more as to me that shows an ungrateful nature as they don't see what they get just what they don't.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895558#Comment_895558
OP stated that they were unhooked as soon as the Killer hooked them, not as soon as the Killer started leaving. If the Killer wasn't intending on working with the Survivor, they would have attacked as soon as they hooked.
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895558#Comment_895558
OP stated that they were unhooked as soon as the Killer hooked them, not as soon as the Killer started leaving. If the Killer wasn't intending on working with the Survivor, they would have attacked as soon as they hooked.
Yes but that is farming someone. What's to say they pointed, killer grabs and hooks them and the survivor was behind them so the killer didn't know where they were?
That is what I meant about context as without the finer details being explained the picture isn't correctly painted so onsteadnof assuming the worst you have to give the benefit of doubt when it comes to a ban situation.
@ASAPTurtle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895479#Comment_895479
Oh of course in situations like this people always have to say "Show me proof" to stuff to where the survivor is the victim. But when the killer is at victim everyone kisses their ass.
It's not about killer or survivor its about needing proof for the devs to do something about a situation when these cases happen as without it its your word versus theirs.
How you saw any bias in what I said is mind boggling.
@mmain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895550#Comment_895550
The killer only hung me once, but he allowed the other survivor who pointed me out originally to unhook me at which point the killer hit me again and was in the process of picking me back up. At no point during any of this did the killer ever take so much as a single swing at the other survivor. The killer didn't have to hang me a second time for it equate to working together. It became working together the moment the killer allowed this other survivor to benefit from pointing me out.
I wouldn't even have dc'd had the other survivor merely ran away after pointing me out, but he followed the killer straight to the hook. The killer allowed him to take me off the hook without ever swinging at him. If that doesn't constitute working together to you I don't know what does.
That's why I said knowing this now I changed my mind. Your original post was light on the exact details and how it was written didn't paint the whole picture and so wouldn't be bannable as it could have just been a farm begind the killers back instantly without the killer knowing its happening which happens a lot in the game
Knowing the killer stood there watching them unhook not just once but twice does fall under the definition of working with them.
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895538#Comment_895538
the Survivor is still working with the Killer and thus is preforming a bannable offense
Pointing out a Survivor in a locker after deliberately revealing yourself while you could otherwise have been hidden is not to your benefit. Thus that Survivor is not simply preforming a strategy.
The Killers reaction to this however (specifically him not hitting that Survivor) means he likely is in fact working with the other Survivor (as in they likely sent messages beforehand) since there is no reason not to just hit the Survivor AND open the Locker.
Not really as this happens a lot. Jumping out a locker and pointing isn't itself considered working with the killer its considered as saving yourself over an other.
Also following and instantly unhooking doesn't mean you are working with them but farming someone as manu do this by crouching under the killers view which itself its not bannable.
Now when it was properly explained that after the first instance they then followed the killer and unhooked them as the killer watches then it became something different and was cemented the second time. With video proof they players would be punished.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895538#Comment_895538
Is the Killer allowed to wait for the Survivor to unhook OP right in front of them under the assumption that the Survivor is aware of this and trying to let OP get hooked again? Because at that point, both parties are aware of the other's action and participating in such a way that actively encourages it.
They never stated that in the OP. They just stated they unhooked them and were downed again. Context is always important and without knowing all the facts whixh they have now said what the actual OP stated was not bannable.
-
@mmain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895486#Comment_895486
This survivor pointed me out. The killer hit me, hung me, and allowed the other survivor to unhook me. The killer then hit me again and was in the process of picking me up. This all happened without the killer ever once taking a swing at this other survivor. I don't give flying $%#& if was pre-planned or a random. They were still working together. Trying to claim they weren't working together if it wasn't pre planned is ludicrous. If you are working on your car and your neighbor walks out and just starts helping you without it being planned ahead of time would you claim the two of you weren't working on your car together because it wasn't planned ahead of time?
Now that you have expanded it can be classed as working together. You never stated in the first place they let them unhook you staring at them without hitting them and allowing to unhook you a second time.
If you recorded it then you would have proof to send.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895486#Comment_895486
If the two are aware of the other's presence and actively doing these things knowing that the other will respond accordingly, is that not working together?
It all depends as the killer is allowed to take advantage of a situation with a survivor being a troll.
-
@Venoxxie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895479#Comment_895479
Working with the killer does not necessarily mean they HAVE to talk pre-match and say "Hey, lemme help you kill all other survivors." The survivor can make the decision themself and say "Maybe the killer will be nice to me if I show them every other survivor." or "Ima give the killer their killers because no other survivor deserves to live." or something like that.
The killer was passing by and the other survivor not only let the killer know they were there but also let them know the other person was there. And one point that has been made earlier was "Working with the opposing side without letting others participate is bannable and is what happened. The player DC'ing is not the issue here." which I don't seem to see you commenting on. This person was FORCED into being farmed and not allowed to enjoy the game. You cannot force someone into your pathetic farming game (which we don't even know it was but it didn't sound like it).
Yes, the survivor was a jerk but they worked with the killer to grief the other survivor (which states in the rules it is bannable).
Working with the killer implies both sides are part of it and they take full advantage of the situation and work to get the survivors not just two instances of a survivor being a troll.
Is farming someone off the hook bannable? No
Is pointing to someone in a locker to benefit yourself so you can not get hit bannable? No
There is a line when it happens yes but it has to be without a doubt or practically every game someone would get banned for hook farming alone.
-
@mmain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895413#Comment_895413
You either didn't read or didn't comprehend. The other survivor pointed me out. The killer then hooked me. The other survivor unhooked me. The killer hit me again, knocked me down again, and was in the process of picking me up again, and obviously would have hung me again. That's something happening more than once. How in the world is that letting me play?
Which is all part of the game. They pointed you out and farmed you playing like a douche but that doesn't constitute working with the killer. This needs both parties to engage in the act not just one being a troll.
Did you stay and watch them do this to all the others? If not then its just a random troll and you were unlucky.
-
@ASAPTurtle said:
@twistedmonkey The OP stated that the killer didn't even bother to hit the survivor that ratted them out and hooked them. The rat also proceeded to unhook said survivor with the killer not even bothering to swing at the unhooker, and instantly hits the unhookee as soon as their invincibility bubble ran out.
The OP already knew how that match was going to play out and D'C and hopefully sent in a report. Not only that but the killer messaged him getting salty that the survivor was being abused by both sides.
That still doesn't constitute working with the killer.
Yes they farmed them off the hook and the killer downed them.
Someone farming and the killer hitting the hooked survivor doesn't mean they are working together the killer is just taking advantage of the situation.
The person was being a troll but it's still not bannable under working with the killer as there is no proof to say the person in question wasn't chased, hooked and killed themselves.
-
@ASAPTurtle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895264#Comment_895264
Working with the opposing side without letting others participate is bannable and is what happened. The player DC'ing is not the issue here.
How did they not let them play? They dc'd after it happening once. Being hooked once doesn't stop you from playing the rest of the match once saved and escaping.
As I said it takes a lot more to be classed as working with the killer or dropping a pallet and someone being hit or leading them to others while in a chase to get stop them chasing yourself would be classed as the same.
Working with the killer is a lot more than pointing once to a locker.
-
@ASAPTurtle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895264#Comment_895264
Working with the opposing side without letting others participate is bannable and is what happened. The player DC'ing is not the issue here.
That is not working with the other side its selling someone out to save yourself which is allowed.
Working with the other side is purposefully leading them to another player or constantly greifing them and letting the killer down them like unlocking them instantly and they let you live while you do it.
Selling someone out to save your own skin for that one time is not.
@mmain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/895264#Comment_895264
I will respectfully disagree that it isn't warranted. It is my personal opinion if we have no choice but to simply go along with these kind of actions it simply encourages people that are already doing them to continue and encourages people that aren't doing them to start because they gain easy points with no repercussions.
Dcing unless it's for real life or a bug is against the rules. Since this is neither then it is unwarranted and comes down to the same reason others use for a myriad of things.
Didn't like the killer, didn't like their perks, didn't like the map, didn't like how they played etc.
-
It happens and its part of the game.
It's just unlucky you spawned close to the killer with another survivor. What the survivor did is not bannable as its just selling you out so they can escape.
You can work with others or not, you can lead the killer to others to try and stop chasing you, sandbag someone to give yourself more of a chance. As long as you don't actively work with the killer to ruin the game by doing it multiple times while the killer ignores you.
Dcing due to this however is against the rules and isn't warranted.
-
@Miss_Britannia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/894592#Comment_894592
Nope, they have a whole new rarity.
Rarity comes from a demand for something which these skins dont have the same value. The codes were not just something which people had to sell but stating they did to try and scam people.
It was also something people bought to add to an existing account. And why most people selling accounts are done due to having all the perks unlocked with all chars or ones who made an account and bought in a sale so they can profit from it.
You state you had them and have been told you are getting them back so since you WILL have them again saying you should have the same chances to get what others have doesnt make any sense. That is contradictory to you actually having had them in the first place.
-
@Miss_Britannia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/894571#Comment_894571
So people can’t sell their DBD account St. hat have the event skins???? OK.
Thats a platform issue not a dev issue. Its also against all the platforms rules and if they find out the account can be banned.
The event skins also arent that widely used or liked as much as those others were, they were also not tied to around 1k codes at an event like the golden feng and probably hundreds of thousands already have the event skins.
-
@Miss_Britannia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/894505#Comment_894505
Gold Feng ins just a recolour right? So why can’t I have the event skins since they too are also recolours?
Have you missed the post that stated you will get the event skins you lost back? they have the data so its just a matter of time till they are restored to your account.
The Feng one is different as the recolour already existed and was done long ago. The majority of the skins were also given out as codes which were being sold online for silly amounts and some people were being scammed so they are killing the black market.
-
Just ignore them and dont engage. The devs have stated its not and wont be bannable.
Yes the bug is bad and it sucks for those affected but a fix is on the way.
-
Well I can see you are in a low rank bracket so the matchmaking will widen if you have been waiting a long time for a game and it should only go 6 either side. Its not normal so report it after the game anyway.
My next point is well you have all tier 3 perks from multiple charcters so you obviously have been playing for a while and have multiple DLC's. Maybe this should actually be the norm for matchmaking and it looks at perks along with time played instead of possibly pitting you with newer players with no perks.
-
I agree for consitency putting them on the store would be logical as it treats all event cosmetics past and new the same.
While I didn't care about them being giving out for free and I have them all I do think the store option is the fairest way to sort it. That is afterall the reason given why the new event ones are always on the store.
-
@mmain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/890067#Comment_890067
I sometimes forget about the challenges. I'm not participating in them for that very reason. Way too many of the challenges make people play in a way that makes the game unenjoyable.
Im the same and why it takes a long time to do any of them. When playing normally they can take a while. The tier 2 drop pallets while in chase for example took me over 30 games to complete as I don't like wasting them just for a challenge.
-
This is what happens when a challenge to unhook survivors is put on the archives. It's quicker to get through them by instantly unhooking with BT, farming people and just ending the game quicker to move on to the next one.
The goals have changed due to this and so doing gens or escaping becomes a secondary objective over what their personal goal is.
-
It's not really fair to ban for a bug which isn't the players fault and can be done without knowledge of it.
Its basically saying all players should just avoid the basement hooks now which can't be done and some even run basement builds and have done for a long time.
It's a bug and they are working on a fix so we will just have to wait.
-
@Acromio said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885852#Comment_885852
"The good leatherface players never have to camp and do well with him."
The good Leatherkek players are good M1 killers players. Because that's what Leatherkek is, if you don't use him to camp. A M1 killer with a big terror radius.
That's becasue leatherface is an m1 killer with a situational one hit down. You need to be in the same range roughly to get a chainsaw hit but with the emblems it less viable if they want to rank up.
It says a lot about the skill of a player who doesn't camp with him over those that do feeling its the only way he can be played.
-
@AkiTheKitten said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/888057#Comment_888057
The game had terrible crashes and bugs (still does sometimes) so it was unplayable
Btw crashes still randomly crash on console but nothing is done yet either
Edit: other console players I've talked to on the forums have confirmed they're not for console so playing then would have been for nothing cause there wasn't a way to unlock them anyways
The game wasn't in the best state for any platform and queue times could be horrendous. This is the argument many use as to why they shouldnt be released. Personally I don't care either way but I think they should be put in the store at least.
They were available for console though as many do have them as I said.
Video of David's jacket on ps4
https://youtu.be/uc7KztzqfTUThread asking for them to be redone in an event with some saying it was terrible on console and others saying it was fine and they have them.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/40872/huntress-hound-mask-and-davids-shirt
-
@AkiTheKitten said:
Great, the selfish community screws over console yet again. Good job guys
How so?
Howling grounds was on console and the skins were available to earn. The event was out 8 months after the console release so many have them.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/886028#Comment_886028
See my comment about tachanka... and you can pip against leatherface even if you die... just do gens when the match starts not getting caught, do a prolonged chase with him if you are caught and you’ll atleast safety pip. If they’re high rank they’ll likely definitely not insidious camp early anyway if they’re trying to win since the emblem system will not let them pip... pipping as leatherface is incredibly difficult at high ranks since he has an insta-down or is otherwise just an M1 killer.
You cant pip if caught first and then camped as you dont have a chance to do anything which is why the devs have been trying to reduce its viabliltiy.
You wont pip in high ranks if you punish camping by just doing gens and getting out. Pipping requires someone to be chased, do gens and then make a save or get out. You don't want to be chased by a camper as they will normally always get at least always two kills due to how the game is.
You can pip as leatherface at high ranks fairly easily you just can't use your power to down as much. It the same for the likes of Billy or the Trapper as they also get punished. This hopefully is being looked into as each killer should have different requirements instead of a one for all system.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885929#Comment_885929
I played leatherface when he was viable, I’d slug the person rescued and punish hook rushers but otherwise played normally - I killed what I didn’t like as teammates when I solo’ed but yeah I’d camp SWF and you might have some clue how op they were back in the day... they’re still op but nowhere near the current level... I played hag after and now nurse. I wouldn’t ever sit on the hook all game because I wanted to win... unless it was the obsession (original DS) because killing that was necessary if you managed to dribble it to a hook in order to win because they could just do so much with DS to ruin your chances of winning... simply going down in-place of a teammate by bodyblocking near the end of the game would mean you’d get no momentum left.
If you’ve watched the leatherface films he ambushes people he kills looking through peep holes and jumping out. The devs probably wouldn’t admit it but I can pretty much they bet they thought of him being paired with insidious... at-least some of them.
No, the play to play around hook-rushers (who are trying to steal the killers momentum) would be removed and that needs counter-play. BT or not, survivors meed to rescue not on their terms but based around what the killer is doing. If someone actually insidious camps against good survivors... the good survivors will do gens letting the teammate hit stage 2 and then rescue them if they can and the killer will lose because the gens have been done. And it’s bubba... good survivors will just loop him well enough. There’s tonnes of pallets on every map and he’s a standard 115m/s... a lot more evadable than high mobility killers.
Did you not see where I said a suggestiin that BT takes 20s to activate after a hook before it can be used? This itself stops hook rushers as if seen then they can't simply run in and rescue or instantly take a hit and rescue.
The reason camping is being actively made less viable is punishing it by doing gens means a depip at the higher ranks which shouldn't be the case. The emblems themselves are designed so both sides are not using specific strats or just doing one thing in game ie gen rushing or camping.
Leatherface in the movies doesnt have to be the same in game. Much like the pig isn't the same as in the movies and the traps which aren't designed to kill which people first thought but to slow the game down.
It's a game to play for fun and why certain things are being worked on to try and elevate the most unfun strats from being the norm.
-
@SadLegion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885886#Comment_885886
No. Before they were standing on one place mending themselves so if you decided to come back for them after hitting multiple people you knew their approximate location. Now they can run away to the edge of the map and mend there, they can ran to their teammate so he can mend them for 8!!!!! seconds. Running away leaving scratch marks lol. Except you cant see them in FF and to end FF you need to suffer 4 second cooldown.
Oh... and deep wound doesnt mean ######### after 5 gens are done
Pretty good job so far. Really good job devs. You responded to Nemesis/BoP feedback but you dont care about Legion players feedback at all. Pins rework almost useless since it doesnt apply on first hit. Franks mixtape/Stab wounds study useless. 4 second cooldown after FF. I just dont want to play this game anymore.
They could always run away to mend at the edge of a map. If anything with the shorter mend time they won't and will just run in circles and stay in place to mend when you leave.
Using another survivor to mend them to negate 4s of time means they have to be close enough that and you will see them so you should be able to hit them with FF and put them into DW also.
What you wrote just sounds like a complaint for the sake of it to be honest.
-
@Vetrathene said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885886#Comment_885886
Actually it does because now you can't apply on hit effects to at least do something after the mending is over, so combined Legion is useless. A glorified M1 killer, who is even worse then that.
That's not what I was saying. You specifically mentioned it was ruined due to sprinting which isn't the case as I stated.
I do think Legion needs a complete rework and their power should never have beed tied to DW at all as its a bad mechanic when its actual use was made for a perk to aid survivors but that's another discussion from what your OP was about 😉.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885852#Comment_885852
But it would remove plays... and yeah like the other person says... leatherface gets hits the hardest who’s already one of the weakest killers... bubba is fair, he’s easy to loop but if he catches you his power is based around putting up a fight after this and BT absolutely makes him worthless. There’s no reason to not take billy over him if his defensive mechanics are easily shut down. The fact that he has to run a perk to keep that alive is already a lot to ask and it’s just not that good of a perk.
But those plays can only be done with killers who have the undetectable status.
Trapper, clown, Billy, Leatherface, Doctor, Myers in T2/T3 can't use those plays. It's about consistency for all so it can be balanced correctly and not just be strong on most of the weakest killers.
Your last point tends to say you do camp and that is why you are seemingly annoyed by the suggestion.
Leatherface has a one hit down and his ability to hit multiple was ill thought out on how it could be used by some players. He was never designed to be a camping god it was the players who started to use that strat. His ability was designed to one hit and catch people off guard and have multi hits now and again.
If people want the game to be more balanced certain things to be consistent as if not it buffs some but weakens others creating more of a problem.
-
This doesnt change Legion at all as it was TR based so even after a FF hit they could sprint, walk, crouch etc within it.
As for the others well its to stop the undetectable effect from being able to cheese a down which made that staus the same as the old moon walking legion scenario.
At least they have to be running leaving scratch marks.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885794#Comment_885794
yeah exhaustion add-ons need a rework - forgot about those.
You can’t just eliminate plays from the killer... I play nice up until it’s a tryhard swf... sometimes you need to make a play etc... swf’s would beg the devs to remove any counterplay to their powerlevel no doubt... and it’s already unfair... do you see insidious at high ranks? Not since the emblem system came... do you see borrowed time in high ranks? Always been there and only been buffed which is daft... yet both perks can be obnoxious to the opponents but really insidious is just a juke and nothing more that’ll only work once if the person saving doesn’t check. Really neither perk deserves to exist at high ranks or both perks deserve to... can’t have it one way to make it un-impartial.
I’m going to guess you’ve never had several swf games with bt’s and ds’s... it’s extremely unpleasant to vs.
and no survivors aren’t entitled to be saved (taking the killer’s momentum)... to make a save you do gens regularly so the killer doesn’t go near the hook (And use stealth to make the save not rushing with scratchmarks)... only the best survivors know this and there’s so few of them.
People saved before BT existed you know? You don’t have to gen-rush the killer, just simply do the odd gen to let them know you’re busy and don’t hook rush. I like insidious players because they punish hook rushers... hope devs actually revive it.
It's not about removing plays from a killer but the mechanic being consistent for all. This helps with balance as the trapper or clown for example are disadvantaged more than those who have a power to negate it.
I have met plenty of swf who hook rush and I get free hits on them and always chase the unhooker. I don't tunnel so BT never affects me for the 20s it can be used. The only time its obnoxious is end game which reworking can be solve that issue.
It's not about free saves but about combating camping for those who use it just because they can.
Your argument is centred around a strat the devs have actively been trying to make less viable for a while. Yes it has its place but it should not be made so easy with some killers it can be done simply by pressing m2.
@Acromio said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885794#Comment_885794
Leatherkek's power revolves completely, 100% around camping.
It's not, its just the players who choose too use it that way. The good leatherface players never have to camp and do well with him.
@GrootDude is one of them.
-
@ZerLukas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885755#Comment_885755
What I see is "The event was hard, so I deserve the skin, while others don't". Except for it wasn't that hard and people exaggerate the effort needed to get the skins.
That's what I got from those complaints and to me it sounds like elitism. If I missed something feel free to point it out.
For some it was elitism of having something others dont but for others it was mainly about something they earned being given out for free. It also made the fact legacy was not being released as well seem strange to some.
To make it fair they could release them on the store like the more recent event skins rather than give them out for free then there is some consistency with all event skins.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885760#Comment_885760
You’d essentially have to make BT not work when the exit gates are powered if you’re going to include “honest killers” as a whole but pretty much if a killer runs a perk to counter BT: i.e. insidious which is already weak... or someone takes pig, or someone takes wraith etc... BT shouldn’t work. That’s like the killer bringing a perk to permanently turn off exhaustion perks the whole game etc.
It’s a bad concept.
That I what I said in my post you quoted stop it from working at end game.
Why should the trailer be punished the whole game but Freddy can negate it? I don't think you realise how the stats can be skewed with allowing this on stealth killers which makes it harder to balance and can make them seem more powerful than they are.
Killers already have exhaustion add-ons to negate those perks from working.
It's a bad concept for those that use a power to camp. It's not a bad concept for those that don't as they won't be ever be affected by it in the first place.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885687#Comment_885687
All crutches have conditions... camping a strategy killers can use... we’d be back to free escapes when the exit gates got powered so won’t happen.
If a wraith goes invis to counter it - i.e. the person saving is on death hook, the person on the hook isn’t... the wraith should be able to tunnel considering he has the kit to ignore BT and also gain additional hooks this way.
And no BT is: let me run at the hook, “oh killer see’s me/my scratch marks, I don’t care and can farm this guy” perk.
And really, at high ranks there is practically no camping until the exit gates are powered since if you camp before gens get done... BT pretty much just acts as a free escape for swf in the endgame followed by t-bagging the killer for playing fair before the end.
Its a strat yes bug one the devs have been actively trying to get peoole away from using. So it makes sense.
BT only works versus a camper with my time activation idea. If there is no camping in the high ranks it won't really affect the game and becomes a dead perk. They can even make changes to end game to make it less obnoxious by removing it after the gates are powered. Yes sometimes camping is needed and it should be viable in certain situations but it shouldn't be a strat that is viable the whole game just because one used a killer with a power which negates it.
I don't agree a wraith should be able to do this due to their power. That to me is called cheesing a down and is just as bad as the moonwalk scenario with old legion.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885612#Comment_885612
I can’t. Even if a mob of entitled survivors demand it, it won’t happen since there are no survivor perks that stop killer perks from working and it’d be pretty dumb if there were.
BT’s overpowered in co-ordinated teams and is pretty much used to farm or make saves that punish honest killers. Killers should be able to slug the person that got off the hook to punish the farmer.
I main survivor btw, like I even watched angrypug bashing the perk the other day. It just creates bad survivor plays eliminating the need to be smart at all.
BT by design is an anti camping perk. It not working as intended due to an added mechanic makes sense that it then needs a change. A killer shouldn't be able to camp and negate a perk specifically designed to help with it just becasue they have no TR.
They can rework it so farming doesn't work and make it not activate for 20 seconds after a hook so a killer has a least some time to leave for example so honest killers won't be affected.
-
@dont_ask_me_again said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/885309#Comment_885309
BT still only triggers in the killer’s TR so a nerf. (I’m glad it got something of a nerf).
For now but I can see that changing to be distance related soon enough.
-
I use them now and again when switching things up.
They are rare to see but is that really an issue? They removed then due to feedback as people earned them by playtime and taking part in an event.
They could still make a decision to add them to the store like other event cosmetics of course but that's up to them.
-
This isn't a nerf to Legion as it doesn't affect them from what they were so nothing really changes.
It's a qol change due to the undetectable status as that negated BT along and made the anti camping perk useless versus that mechanic.
-
Play Legion 😉 one of the best killers at gaining emblems.
-
It was stated in another post that it was not bannable and won't be.
-
@Stains said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/883978#Comment_883978
Read my previous post about the rift and you will realize how grindy the rift really is.
Rewarding loyal players is not the same as rewarding hardcore grinders that sleep on this game .
It's not playing one hour a day . It's playing 4-5hours depending on the que times
Are you even trying to read the the original posts or are you just opposing me without reason
The average game length is around 12 mins.
7 matches means 1h24m of actual playtime. If you say the rift takes 4-5 hours that means the queue times are around 22m to 31m between each match which tbh I've only seen happen to players around ranks 20-15 or at certain times of day in quiet regions.
To be fair its not as grindy as first thought and its also why they gave the option of waiting to see how far you progress before buying it.
As a battlepass its really quite fair and I feel you cut off your nose to spite your face by taking a break after buying it as you lost out.
The battlepass is designed to entice people to play the game and keep the numbers up. It's logical it should take an amount of time.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881514#Comment_881514
"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.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881588#Comment_881588
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.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881465#Comment_881465
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.
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.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881436#Comment_881436
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.
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.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881395#Comment_881395
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.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881404#Comment_881404
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.
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.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881258#Comment_881258
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?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881286#Comment_881286
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.
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.
-
@BunnyTheHutt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/65511/how-to-avoid-trick-the-hex-ruin
This is either bait or is gonna be a really rude awakening, but what you have just described is something called gen tapping, and it actually takes longer too do a gen if you just held M1 and powered through it.
Gen tapping has been in the game since Ruin and Lullaby were introduced (and probably sooner). My advice is simply to just power through it or find the totem.
The original thread was opened in May 😉 its just been necroed.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881183#Comment_881183
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 keep when the reason to keep it is simple; SPECIFICITY. That is all I have left to say.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881186#Comment_881186
"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.
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.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/881074#Comment_881074
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.
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.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/880962#Comment_880962
Because not everyone reads the rules and if you say "body block" they can assume you mean one thing when you really mean another.
Specificity is necessary here to distinguish the bannable form from the accepted form.
It's like the difference between non-criminal homicide (aka killing in self defense), involuntary homicide, manslaughter, and murder. Legally these are all different terms with different meanings, different penalties, and different implications. If you just say "he killed someone" it doesn't specify the degree to which it was done, and that makes a huge difference. If it was in self defense, well the guy probably shouldn't be punished. If it was premeditated and done with malice, then hell yes lock that mofo up for life.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/880967#Comment_880967
"In otherwords body blocking and softlocking/holding the game hostage/whatever are related but not interchangeable, and the rules are clear about it."
You are right, they are not interchangeable. Hence why we refer to accepted body blocks as just "body blocking", and bannable body blocks as "soft locking".
I chose the term soft lock because it most accurately describes the situation; you cannot continue to play the game and the only way out is to quit the game.
If you want to differentiate it further from soft lock bugs (where you get stuck in a pallet or something) call it "intentional soft locking".
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.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/880926#Comment_880926
"Everyone knows the term body blocking but do they all know the term soft lock? Its not a term I have never personally used and so wouldn't immediately think of it meaning what you perceive it too in this game."
See but this is the point.
Everyone has heard of body blocking, but not everyone understands what is and isn't BANNABLE body blocking. This is why there is confusion, because the same term applies to different situations, some where it is allowed and another very specific instance where it is not allowed.
If you don't know what soft locking is, and then see in the rules "Soft Locking is bannable" you wouldn't immediately make assumptions about what it is (where you definitely would if the rule said "body blocking is bannable"). You'd have to read further into the rules "soft locking is when the killer body blocks a survivor such that they cannot actively play the game for an extended period". There is less confusion and more people become educated about the exact bannable instance. But the term is easily understood in this context so when you see the definition you go "oh that makes sense". And since we have a term for it, you don't need to go into explaining what happened you just say "killer soft locked me". Simple and easy.
"Since body blocking the hook wouldnt be considered a soft lock they then have to have a detailed explanation of body blocking under the term soft lock."
No it's the other way around. Body block is allowed. Body blocks that are soft locks are not.
"Holding the game hostage also is a wide term as a survivor blocking someone in a corner all game imo is holding them hostage and preventing play even if the egc can activate eventually."
This would be soft locking, except done by another survivor instead of the killer.
Think of soft lock as a type of body block, a specific type that is bannable. All other forms of body blocking (which are simply referred to as body blocks) are allowed.
But the confusion only lies when some dont know about the actual rules and so need to read up on what is and isn't in the term.
If the name is changed to something which doesn't automatically imply the actual act then they would still need to read the rules too see what is and isn't and it would still have to reference the term body blocking under the banner of a soft lock.
Why change the name if it needs the players to read the rules and still need to reference the term body blocking witin it instead of just updating the rules to be more detailed so its better explained?