Bastius123
Bastius123
About
- Username
- Bastius123
- Joined
- Visits
- 75
- Last Active
Comments
-
Also happens with hemorrhage, but it's not quite as damning a bug.
-
@bowo said:
@Bastius123 I dont think you understand. Missing two skillchecks reduces the time you have left. allowing two to pass without pressing any button will kill you. what you suggested is already in place, just with two consecutive skillchecks instead of one. missing two skillchecks reduces the timer, but does not immediately kill you
Yeah, though I corrected that. To be clear here, I don't actually kill myself that much in match, so I don't exactly interact with the mechanic every single match. It's when it's actually needed that it's not there to help, something whose disappearance does not affect the average match but makes its absence known when you need it.
I'm arguing for a reversal of a negative change, but it's not a mechanic that I use every match or anything, so I had a few minor misunderstandings in the specifics of how it works. What I can say with certainty, and what I had stood beside from the beginning, is that it takes far too long and in its current form it signposts the attempt far too much. The minor details I had wrong, but the general sentiment stands all the same. It has always been about the ostensible removal of a feature; the minor details may have been off, but the overall complaint stands all the same.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
No one liked to mash a button to struggle on hook and die immediatly if they messed up.There is no good reason to bring that back.
I fully agree. That was actually already touched upon earlier in the thread though.
Nobody's debating the fact that the old mashing system was not fun. What is being contested is the incidental removal of a quick and strategical method of giving up on the hook. As touched on several times in this very thread, there are many different ways to reintroduce it in such a way as to not leave it completely gimped and neutered as it is now.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2189107#Comment_2189107
Wanted to say something similar but yeah,pretty much what you said,i'm glad this changed so survivors now cant just insta kill themselves on death hook anymore,at least its something.One of the best quality of life changes in dbd honestly where dc-ing and killing on hook is a problem.I hope killers that see survivors kill themselves on hook give other survivors a chance and dont succumb to be as toxic as them.
A system that relies on the kindness of its users is not a good system.
Buff killers, I'm in full agreement. Don't try to rebalance by arbitrarily removing mechanics and dumbing down the game. There's a million suggestions I'd make to help the killer in order to increase fun for both sides, from redesigning gen placement to maximize gen guardability to speeding up some killers and everything in between, but the solution is never to remove strategy and mechanical fun.
If the hatches are your problem, look into the hatches. That being said, if you feel that you're being cheated when you kill 3 out of 4 survivors because one single person hatched, then perhaps there's a deeper issue and play beyond the faff on the hook.
-
Extra correction, because I believe in admitting when you're wrong. Mashing doesn't speed it up, it actually slows it down further.
So yeah, it's even less interactive than I had imagined.
-
@Bastius123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2197035#Comment_2197035
Counterpoint:
- You are right, I was mistaken in thinking it was three. However, I already acknowledged the possibility of it being two skill checks. That's still two whole skillchecks that you need to wait to randomly show up and then purposely miss before you're able to #########. The point was the inability to consciously ######### in a way that would really benefit the team at all, thus removing the strategy, and an alternate way to leave a match when you wish to leave the match without having your time wasted. The current eternity of doing nothing still fails to address either problem, so while I appreciate that my confidence in it being three instead of two was misplaced, I had already acknowledged that I could be wrong and that it wouldn't change the fact that there is a considerably greater amount of time waste and a considerably smaller amount of agency on the hook.
- Not quite; it's actually technically reversed. By doing literally nothing, you not only need to wait for the two random skillchecks to appear, but you also need to wait for them to complete their animations fully. In contrast, by mashing the button you are able to fail it sooner and thus complete it slightly faster. The original "input" was a direct lack of input in order to expedite the death sequence. The current state actually does actively encourage input, as missing the skillcheck is quicker than simply letting it miss on its own. Thus, if we want to get technical, you're actually now actively clicking buttons. Again, the point of the matter was the amount of time waste and the lack of agency that strips away an old mechanic that provided calculated risk taking and conscious decision making to the player on the hook. Now, your choices are simply "Do literally nothing" or "Do literally nothing, but also press a button occasionally if you wish to stay alive". Now, an attempt to quickly kill oneself, in contrast, still calls for the button mashing of olde but now does nothing to help your team. The solution, I might add, doesn't even necessarily need a new unique button prompt. While I suggested a separate button for expedience and for more direct agency, the alternative is just to make it so that if the first skill check isn't even attempted then it immediately enters the death phase while a missed but attempted skill check simply increases progression. Would give the killers who feel cheated by hatches for whatever reason their extra couple seconds, would return at least some agency to those on the hook, and would preserve a strategic mechanic that actively helped the game. The amount of time wasted is the greatest contention more than anything, as the sheer time waste that is currently in place due to this change has destroyed a strategic element of the game and has simply lowered the fun by making things longer than they need to be. Again, with this current set up nobody truly wins.
- That's literally part of what I've been saying from the beginning; yes, that is indeed one of the greatest problems. Not the only problem, however. What you seem to be missing is the nature of the tactical sacrifice to begin with. To say that you can still make a tactical sacrifice because the only thing that changed is "It just takes longer now" is missing the intentions behind the tactical sacrifice in the first place. By making it take this long, that element is completely nullified anyways. It would be like making it so that survivors could only suffer the exposed status if they're already injured. "It all works the same, you're just unhappy that they need to have already been hit to be exposed." Except we all know that the point of exposure in the first place is completely circumvented by this sort of silly change. So too is the ability to concede on hook ruined as well. With the amount of time spent on the hook, that element is completely gone because the point of the sacrifice in the first place is to give others a chance to win through your sacrifice. If the sacrifice itself is associated with loud cries from the missed skill checks and a solid minute or more of inactivity and doing nothing, then the attempted sacrifice is signposted and the killer has excessive amounts of time to respond accordingly. There is no more strategy. It's too slow to do what it once did, there's too little interaction to be engaging, the addition of this much timewaste literally defeats the point of it all and serves as nothing more than another point of frustration tossed onto the pile of bad game design decisions. The killers, I might add, are no more rewarded by this and are in the end being and the loss of this mechanic serves as nothing more than a bandaid to deeper fundamental issues with the game anyways. Again, literally nobody has benefitted.
* The killers, I might add, are no more rewarded by this and are in the end being placated with frankly condescending compromises and the loss of this mechanic serves as nothing more than a bandaid to deeper fundamental issues with the game anyways. Again, literally nobody has benefitted.
To clarify, when I play as killer I want chases. I want mind games. I want to feel like I've actually succeeded. As it is now, the game rewards bad play so heavily that the majority of matches are snuffed of any fun. This is just another bit that frankly rewards bad play. After all, now that there's sufficient time, you can just camp a hook until survivors give up on the save and then leave with ample time to find the hatch. I don't want to be babied and I don't want to have gameplay thrown out just because a couple people out there lost one survivor to a hatch and decided that this sudden useless change will somehow solve all their problems. After all, why on earth would you want a cheap victory that reflects more on the brokenness of the game instead of your own skill?
Though I guess this love of placation and compromise is why so many killers love NOED. All the same, we should at the very least not sit back and defend with all our might these changes that do nothing but detract gameplay from this game. Had strategic sacrificed remained a thing, this change would have been amazing. It still is in some respects, the old struggle wasn't particularly fun necessarily. But the small good that comes with this change most certainly isn't worth the lobotomy that the game's strategy has taken in an attempt to implement this new mechanic. It's half-baked, it's poorly thought out, and like most recent changes it's nothing but an unnecessary and polarizing mess.
-
@bowo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2196184#Comment_2196184
- It is two skillchecks. The wiki confirms it.
- Both the old and new struggle mechanics require the same type of input to give up - you don't press any buttons at all. It just takes longer now.
- As such, the only issue you should have is the amount of time it takes to give up, but it seems like you're taking issue with the new mechanic at a fundamental level.
Counterpoint:
- You are right, I was mistaken in thinking it was three. However, I already acknowledged the possibility of it being two skill checks. That's still two whole skillchecks that you need to wait to randomly show up and then purposely miss before you're able to commit die (I guess s()icide is a naughty no-no word). The point was the inability to consciously commit die in a way that would really benefit the team at all, thus removing the strategy, and an alternate way to leave a match when you wish to leave the match without having your time wasted. The current eternity of doing nothing still fails to address either problem, so while I appreciate that my confidence in it being three instead of two was misplaced, I had already acknowledged that I could be wrong and that it wouldn't change the fact that there is a considerably greater amount of time waste and a considerably smaller amount of agency on the hook.
- Not quite; it's actually technically reversed. By doing literally nothing, you not only need to wait for the two random skillchecks to appear, but you also need to wait for them to complete their animations fully. In contrast, by mashing the button you are able to fail it sooner and thus complete it slightly faster. The original "input" was a direct lack of input in order to expedite the death sequence. The current state actually does actively encourage input, as missing the skillcheck is quicker than simply letting it miss on its own. Thus, if we want to get technical, you're actually now actively clicking buttons. Again, the point of the matter was the amount of time waste and the lack of agency that strips away an old mechanic that provided calculated risk taking and conscious decision making to the player on the hook. Now, your choices are simply "Do literally nothing" or "Do literally nothing, but also press a button occasionally if you wish to stay alive". Now, an attempt to quickly kill oneself, in contrast, still calls for the button mashing of olde but now does nothing to help your team. The solution, I might add, doesn't even necessarily need a new unique button prompt. While I suggested a separate button for expedience and for more direct agency, the alternative is just to make it so that if the first skill check isn't even attempted then it immediately enters the death phase while a missed but attempted skill check simply increases progression. Would give the killers who feel cheated by hatches for whatever reason their extra couple seconds, would return at least some agency to those on the hook, and would preserve a strategic mechanic that actively helped the game. The amount of time wasted is the greatest contention more than anything, as the sheer time waste that is currently in place due to this change has destroyed a strategic element of the game and has simply lowered the fun by making things longer than they need to be. Again, with this current set up nobody truly wins.
- That's literally part of what I've been saying from the beginning; yes, that is indeed one of the greatest problems. Not the only problem, however. What you seem to be missing is the nature of the tactical sacrifice to begin with. To say that you can still make a tactical sacrifice because the only thing that changed is "It just takes longer now" is missing the intentions behind the tactical sacrifice in the first place. By making it take this long, that element is completely nullified anyways. It would be like making it so that survivors could only suffer the exposed status if they're already injured. "It all works the same, you're just unhappy that they need to have already been hit to be exposed." Except we all know that the point of exposure in the first place is completely circumvented by this sort of silly change. So too is the ability to concede on hook ruined as well. With the amount of time spent on the hook, that element is completely gone because the point of the sacrifice in the first place is to give others a chance to win through your sacrifice. If the sacrifice itself is associated with loud cries from the missed skill checks and a solid minute or more of inactivity and doing nothing, then the attempted sacrifice is signposted and the killer has excessive amounts of time to respond accordingly. There is no more strategy. It's too slow to do what it once did, there's too little interaction to be engaging, the addition of this much timewaste literally defeats the point of it all and serves as nothing more than another point of frustration tossed onto the pile of bad game design decisions. The killers, I might add, are no more rewarded by this and are in the end being and the loss of this mechanic serves as nothing more than a bandaid to deeper fundamental issues with the game anyways. Again, literally nobody has benefitted.
-
@twocansofbean said:
If you sucide on hook you take away points from a killer that deserves the rank up.
Killers are too often punished and receive too few points for what they do all around. I agree that they deserve the rank up in many cases, and if I had my way they'd get considerably more points than they do now to encourage them to engage in fun play instead of having to get sweaty solely to not get punished for no reason.
Again, though, this is a different matter completely. The solution is to better balance points, not to remove gameplay. I want killers to get more points, and people shouldn't be practically guaranteed a depip with certain killers for half or more of their games. This is an issue that absolutely needs fixing, but that doesn't detract from the nature of this negative change.
-
@HR_Helios said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2189746#Comment_2189746
Exactly the time that you're spent on hook being camped can be used by your teammates to do gens and help them escape. Hit your skill checks and stop whining 😂
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
The statement is true in the same sense that "The time you spent patrolling the hook could have been spent patrolling the gens to find survivors" is true. If you know there's somebody crouched behind a rock literally beside the hook then you'd be a fool to leave and pretend you didn't see them. So too would you be a fool to consciously struggle when there's only one person left in the hopes of buying them time to do gens; that's almost certainly not going to be how they escape if they do, so rather than that the logical action would be to concede, take the L, and hope that your early acceptance of defeat grants a little levity towards the remaining survivor.
Instead of being able to make interesting decisions like this and gambling your early death for somebody else's survival, your only option now is to tab out and play a different game while you wait to be allowed to play the game you've booted up.
Incidentally, the problem wouldn't be half as bad if a completely missed skillcheck actually killed you, or if an attempted yet failed skillcheck (so you could mash the skillcheck to fail faster) would lead you to a faster death, but as it is now you'll basically be waiting up on that hook for so long that there's really no difference between "conceding" and just tabbing out to play a cookie clicker for a couple minutes.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's impossible for me to tell the difference between somebody playing the game and somebody whose mother called them out of the room there's a serious issue with the amount of gameplay present. The difference between somebody trying to strategically concede and somebody who literally tabbed out to avoid boredom while playing this videogame is that the person who is strategically trying to concede will be swearing angrily in chat afterwards while the guy who's just bored will have just forgotten that he's playing this "high octane" game of sitting and waiting. That's it.
-
@bowo said:
@Bastius123 I'm not sure what part of the current hook "give up" mechanic is. Why is having a separate button so important to you when ignoring the skillchecks is functionally identical?
The skillchecks come at seemingly random intervals with a great deal of time wasted. For strategic purposes it's literally useless, no more strategic than saying "Just hide until guy on hook dies". For those who wish to leave the match in an honest way for whatever reason (lagging match, unfun play, cheating, etc) you're still having a considerable amount of time wasted. For those who simply want to play a game, you're now in a situation where the mechanical choices you have are either ignore the game, ignore the game, or kind of pay attention while sitting around doing literally nothing and occasionally clicking a button once before fading out again.
The hooks weren't exactly a paragon of strategy and engagement before, but at least there was agency while on the hook. You could still make strategic choices that helped your team, even if at the cost of yourself. You could still prevent survivors from feeding you to a killer. And if you needed to die for whatever reason, it would be done without wasting your time.
A slight slowdown is one thing, but even before there was an animation for your dying phase that gave the killer some time to respond and move on. As it is now, you're basically just wasting one player's time completely, shutting them out from doing literally anything but press a button, and you've stripped away an active part of the game's strategy.
It's three skillchecks missed to death it seems, by the way. Two at the very least, though I'm 99% sure it's 3. Assuming average luck, you're basically just sitting there doing nothing for up to a minute with no strategic input. You haven't even got the choice to make a strategic sacrifice to help the team, you're now literally just locked in place. Less engagement is a negative point in my book, not a positive.
It doesn't even help the killer that much in the grand scheme anyways, as anybody who isn't camping would have more than enough time to hatch hunt even with the ability to give up instantly. Of course they won't get the hatch 100% of the time, but if that's the complaint then there are greater issues to be discussed and there are better ways of achieving a solution to this than stripping away gameplay mechanics and rendering the game less engaging.
-
Because the devs do not like fun.
Stop giving them your money and maybe they'll fix it.
-
Those who are trying to ragequit will still get out, they'll just now have to do it slower, perhaps even go out of their way to try get everyone killed if they're mad enough.
Those who are trying to use giving up strategically to benefit their team are no longer able to use this mechanic, even though there's no good reason to remove it.
Who exactly is benefiting from this lack of agency again?
-
It really is that simple.
The thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that this doesn't stop somebody from rendering themselves useless to the team. As others have pointed out, if you want to be dead then you can be dead. The difference is that in this way it's just slowing things down for literally everybody involved. If you're down a team member, at least you know it. As it is now, people are just taking up space and are an active detriment to their team.
You've not stopped the fourth from ruining it for the rest. If anything, you've empowered them to do so.
-
"I'm sorry a survivor got to hatch before you. Eyeroll."
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2191158#Comment_2191158
The fact that you took my comment out of context to 'get me' shows me you have absolutely nothing of value to say. Continue to whinge on about how Killers trying to win...I mean Killers camping and tunneling and slugging...are bad for the game. And how it's everyone else's fault when you DC like a baby.
Maybe someday you'll accept that the other team tries to win instead of demanding things you don't like get removed like a spoiled, entitled child.
Or maybe you'll quit the game and improve it with your absence, because you sound like the type of person who blames your team, the game, and Killers playing 'toxic' when you mess up.
The only bit I took out of context was at the very end to openly laugh at you, the rest still stands. Or what, no retort?
Taking a look at your post history, it looks like both of us are equally the types to whinge, so I'm afraid if you're going to hop into a thread to cry about how you want the killers to just be handed a free win you won't find much sympathy from me at least.
It's almost like both sides have cheap and boring things they can do to one another. It's almost like the solution, therefore, is to raise one's concerns and then hope that these devs fix them. Really makes you think.
90% of your post history seems to be you complaining about survivors without considering the mechanics themselves. For that reason, I'll just let you make my argument for me:
"they figure, since I played 'toxic' by their made up baby rules, they get to be toxic back."
"It's in no way you demanding Survivors be given an easily abuseable crutch instead. 🙄"
"But don't come in here and say I'm not winning 'correctly' because I don't play by your made up trash rules. That's something a child does."
"And the bottom line of my posts. The underlying message? Player agency."
"It's not up to you to tell others how they're allowed to play."
"Because you disagree with me, I must be a troll? Must be nice, just finding reasons to ignore opposing viewpoints."
I'm doubling down now: you're clearly the type of player who was mocked once in chat and decided to play as toxically as you could ever since. Killers like you are literally killing the game, grats there.
Perhaps I'm taking you out of context again by pointing out the fact that you're making similar arguments whenever it's convenient for the killer side of things.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2190959#Comment_2190959
If you force yourself to die on the hook; you're walking off the field while your team is losing. It's still poor sportsmanship.
And are you REALLY going to claim I'm at fault for someone ELSE rage-quitting? Holy #########, people will blame the other team for EVERYTHING these days, huh?
'It's not my fault I left the game early! It's your fault for making me leave the game early!'
Sure; it's my fault someone quite like a wuss because they did not like my perks, or the map, or my Killer, or that they got downed first, or that they were in a bad mood, or they had a teammate accidently sandbag them, or any of the other million reasons people will invent as to why THEY did not lose or THEY did not quit.
It's always someone else's fault, huh?
| If you force yourself to die on the hook; you're walking off the field while your team is losing. It's still poor sportsmanship.
The goal of the killer is to kill the survivor. By letting the killer kill them, the survivor isn't walking away from the game. You're thinking of ALT+F4, that would be more comparable to walking off the field. The goal is literally for the killer to kill the survivors. You may be unhappy with how much of a fight they put up, but they still played as much as they need to in order to respect the rules of the game. Your example is bad because you're comparing losing the game to refusing to play it.
| And are you REALLY going to claim I'm at fault for someone ELSE rage-quitting?
If people constantly quit games when playing with you, the constant factor seems to be you. All sarcasm aside, I started by blaming the bad mechanics of the game. However, with you lauding them and aggressively complaining to anybody who doesn't agree, it sounds like there may very well be an issue with your playstyle that leads to people not wanting to play with you specifically.
By the way, a fun little story about sports since you seem to enjoy them. There used to be a basketball player named George Mikan. Guy was 6 foot 10 and quite famous in the league during his days. Back then, there were no rules about how long somebody could hold onto the ball before getting punished. Famously, he'd hold the ball above his head to keep it out of reach from other players, or he'd just sit by the net and literally hit the ball out of the net any time it was able to go in. Back then, few players were as tall as him so there was no way to actually punish it. It wasn't against the rules at all, mind you, but people thought it was cheap and unfun. People stopped attending the games and there were athletes who quit completely, not because the game as a whole was bad but because this one move was not being punished and killed the fun for everyone else. All the same, he'd keep doing it. After all, it's not his fault that the game allowed it, and a win was a win. So, he just kept doing it without a second thought. In response, players would rush to get a single point and then they'd literally just sit on the ball for the rest of the game, knowing that the only way to get to it would give the opponent a fowl. After all, he couldn't do it to them if they did it first. Again, this was completely within the rules of basketball at the time, but it was boring as could be and literally nobody liked playing or watching these matches. It was all within the rules of the game, and nobody was being "unsporting" because they were integral rules to the game. Yet they were awful matches that nobody enjoyed all the same. You can pretend it's impossible for it to be your fault all you want, but if you're playing in a way that is literally no fun, then why would you be surprised when people decide to not play with you? After all, the solution for basketball wasn't to be all spiteful to those who would sit on the ball in turn, pretending that they were somehow morally superior to one another. The real solution? Fix the awful to make it fun again.
Again, the original point was that there were reasons outside of you as an individual to keep these mechanics, but if you're going to pretend it's outlandish that a killer can be so boring and unfun as to actively make people not want to play with them then I'm afraid that you can very well be the reason that nobody wants to play with you. Just like everywhere else in life, if you're no fun or awful to be around then nobody will want to play with you. No amount of stomping and yelling will make people like you. Perhaps, however, fixing the game may help the situation for both sides. Maybe we can start with this new and negative change, don't you think?
| Sure; it's my fault someone quit
I'm glad you understand :^)
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2190127#Comment_2190127
It's called 'good sportsmanship'. Kind of like how footballs teams don't walk off the field if they're losing, because it would petty and be called 'bad sportsmanship'.
It's also called 'being considerate of others', something people seem to lack, these days.
If you die on the hook, that's not walking off the green without finishing the game. That's just losing.
You're the one selfishly complaining that people may choose to accept defeat early for reasons that you and only you are unhappy with. If they want to quit because they're unhappy with a particular thing, then you've still played and you've still won. You still got the stack from the first hook. You still got the points for the chase, the hook, and the kill. If your complaint is that you should have gotten more for what you've done, then make that argument instead. If you think the issue is that too many people are killing themselves to rage quit, then perhaps there's a deeper issue at play than a lack of sportsmanship.
It's also clear that Saitamafed is being quite charitable and reasonable with your argument, but you're refusing to even acknowledge it. Again, I'll boulster what he says once more: If there is an issue leading to a disproportionate number of players to ragequit, then perhaps the problem itself needs to be addressed. People don't ragequit when they're having fun, and people don't suicide on hook if they think that staying alive is the better choice (at least now that the struggle mechanic is gone, far fewer accidental suicides now). If a mechanic consistently leads to survivors trying to kill themselves, then perhaps there's a deeper issue that needs addressing. Or, if I'm feeling less charitable, if a lot of the people you play against are constantly killing themselves and ragequitting, maybe the problem is you.
-
@bowo said:
you can still "give up" on hook, it just takes a bit longer. allowing two consecutive skill checks to pass without any input will cause you to die.
I'm not even necessarily opposed to making it take longer, the first skillcheck around plus the death animation would already extend it long enough. If somebody willfully misses a skillcheck, then perhaps that should be enough to signal to the game you're trying to die.
To be clear, I mean literally a willful skillcheck; if somebody tabs out like a lot of people do, then that's just not doing the skillcheck. Though even then, the real solution is to just have a separate button that, when clicked, fills a bar. If the bar fills, then you give up. I don't mind it taking longer, but at this stage the time it takes to "give up" can, depending on RNG, be as long as the actual time it takes if you were actively trying to stay alive, thus killing the point completely.
Without a proper "give up" mechanic, all it does is waste time, remove strategy, and encourage people to stop focusing on the game and start distracting themselves to fill the time that would have at least previously been taken up by mashing and considering if/when to #########. As it stands right now, the ability to not have to mash is a definite plus and nobody's arguing that; the real issue is that they've once again stripped the game from a mechanic that leaves even less conscious play.
-
@Power_Guy said:
No.
If you can't accept that a match may go against you in a PvP game & want to ragequit; maybe PvP games are not for you.
I'm glad giving up on the hook is slower to do now. I am heartily sick of people who giving up on hook because they did not like the map, my Killer, my perks, that they were found first, that they were downed first, that they realized I have a perk with tokens (and thus bail to deny me said tokens), etc.
Giving up on the hook is just another form of rage-quitting. It's no different from force-closing the game; it just dodges a DC penalty.
Except this isn't just about rage quitting, though even with that point it is an issue on its own that needs to be addressed.
Firstly, just because it's slower doesn't mean they won't not do it. If anything, it's worse now because you're now getting actively punished while your teammate tries to kill themselves. If the issue is players committing suicide on hook out of rage, perhaps there's a deeper issue that needs to be looked at beyond the way they're doing it.
Secondly, it's literally a strategic action you can take on the hook. In fact, it's about the only strategic action you can take while on the hook. By removing the mechanic you've done nothing but remove gameplay. In the grand scheme it doesn't actually help anybody at all, and while you can try be mopey and spiteful and celebrate that it's slower, it only hurts you to have teammates choosing to just tab out and ignore the game if they get angry or upset. As an actual mechanic it helped players, even in the solo experience, and as an anti-ragequit mechanic it helped to get them to the next game faster. Literally nobody benefits from the removal of this mechanic.
Incidentally, if you can't accept that a match may end with an opponent sacrificing themselves for their teammates & want to punish them for doing so, maybe asymmetrical PvP games are not for you.
-
@Kirkylad said:
The change has done a lot more good than bad and is something the community has been asking about for years now. Just try your best and if you lose just take the L and move onto the next match.
Same as above, I'm explicitly asking to be allowed to "take the L". Never said the lack of mashing was the issue, the sole issue is the inability to have any agency while on the hook.
-
@Zagrid said:
Ah, so you are mad that you can't give survivors free escapes because your team lost, and you can't troll other teammates by dying right as they get to the hook because you don't like their plays...
Right...
You can still give up just as easily. This just makes it so:
1. the killer actually has time to make it to the hatch before the person dies on hook if they already know where it is. And
2. If your team is in a position to save you within basically 10 seconds of being hooked they can too.
If your team is all urban immersioning around the map you can die on hook just as easily.
Also, how is not being able to die on hook instantly "remove the fun". If your fun in DbD is giving up, well then might I suggest not playing? It's like giving up, but you don't even have to load into the game before you are already out of the game!
And let's be honest, not having to spam the button now is an objectively good change because it was giving people medical problems. And I will take not getting carpal tunnel and having to wait an extra 10 seconds to get to the next game over the old system any day of the week.
Except I never said that the new struggling is worse than the old struggling. In fact, quoting myself verbatim:
"Better than button mashing I suppose, but the inability to just end the game and move onto the next one directly harms play."
The core issue I'm addressing is that you have one less option to make. The same people claiming that hook suicide isn't a tactic are the exact same people arguing that hook camping and sitting around in front of the hook is a perfectly fun and valid strategy. Which, I want to be clear, it can be. However, the ability to decide to "take the L" early and allow your teammate a chance to get the hatch is just as valid a tactic as you deciding to sit and stare at the survivor on the hook instead of immediately leaving to search for the hatch.
As for you telling people to take the L, you're missing the point. That's literally what I'm asking to be able to do: take the L. As it stands right now, you're literally having your time wasted in many circumstances and you've literally removed the one form of control that a survivor had while still on the hook. The way you struggled, button mashing, was definitely an issue; nobody is arguing that there aren't upsides to the current struggle. The real issue is that the game keeps stripping agency from players.
As an aside, you can call it "trolling your team" all you want, but simply put there are times where killing yourself is literally the better choice strategically. If you're going to argue that killers should be allowed to just closely patrol hooks, then killers taking the L and moving on should be equally acceptable.
If you want them to fix the hatch, tell them to fix the hatch. Don't just make it so players now have even less to do when on the hook. Or at least remove the skill checks and let people alt-tab, as it is right now there are some who literally don't even do the skill checks and just pull out a phone to play around or tab out to do something more fun, leading them to die faster. If you're going to remove the blood points and remove the strategy, at least have the courtesy to drop the pretenses and just let us stop paying attention so that we don't have to sit here babysitting a gameplay-less game.
-
Yeah, that certainly sounds fun.
Less chases, less gameplay, less user agency, more alt+tabbing, more reasons to simply stop playing completely. An excellent idea, I say we also go ahead and just make it so that killers don't have to go through all that boring effort of hitting the players in the first place. Perhaps we can just implement a button that let's you kill the survivors immediately without the faff of the chase.
Then we can all finally just uninstall this game and move on to something better.
-
Bumping the thread because the game is still broken. I love how we're all just pretending it's not now that they've turned it from unplayable to just awful.
Hey BHVR, why is the most dangerous place to be in this game under a pallet? Why is it that well over half the time you stun a killer with the pallet you'll get hit regardless? Why is it that even pre-throwing pallets you'll still often get hit despite a solid meter between you and the killer with a pallet blocking the path?
It's like you want us to stop playing your godawful game.
-
I brought in red maps set up to track the totems at a long distance multiple times, going so far as to practically throw the game moving totem to totem and still could not complete the mission. I won't say it's impossible but the way it's set up it's ######### awful. Not that Behavior cares about the issues in their game, they'd rather just put up sarcastic comments on the loading screens joking about how broken their game remains.
-
Just to clarify, I don't mean three minutes real time to search the map for it, I mean I found the damn thing and then walked in a circle around it for 3 minutes real time trying to solve why I could hear it but not see it, at first thought it was through a wall or some trash but no, it was at the very bottom of a staircase covered by a giant lump of flesh. One of the other survivors, with a key, found it before me but they could not open the hatch and escape. I rubbed my face against the damn thing for literal minutes until the killer walked up. I hid and lost the killer at first, but once I realized that I had just been screwed over by the game AGAIN for literally no good reason I just kind of gave in. The killer promptly closed the hatch before sending me to a cage. Which, by the way, also counts as a hooking for the killer but does not interact at all with survivors who unhook them from the cage either. I'm getting really damn sick of these mechanics that are so blatantly just there to ######### the players who want to spend money on and enjoy your game.
-
So it's an oversight then?