CORENdot
CORENdot
About
- Username
- CORENdot
- Joined
- Visits
- 159
- Last Active
Comments
-
Those are not in-game screenshots right?
They look like concept art.
If the game looked like that back then, the "painterly effect" looked so nice indeed.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2994882#Comment_2994882
Thats right. NOED is far from being meta, so you can't assume you have to deal with it at any given match. And even in the case were it might be in play (lets say a random wraith), even then boon totems offer much more bang for your perks then cleansing them away. The optimal counterplay to NOED is just to know all the totems spots and maybe make mental notes during the game were you saw bones, and then run around the map, cleansing them in less then a minute, if during the endgame one of your mates gets struck down.
The game moved so far away from a "cleanse all 5 bones" meta, that you might actually be hurting your team by doing so. And besides the occasional ruin or plaything/pentimento build, hexes have totally fallen out of favor, because they are so unappealing and unreliable.
This.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2994604#Comment_2994604
can't believe people think you can reasonably cleanse 5 totems per game in solo q lmao
The problem comes when players assume that cleansing 5 totems is the best strategy against NOED which Killer may not even have it.
-
Yes, many people don't understand that the problem is not that 1 survivor avoids 1 down in a specific chase & zone.
It's on having every single chase of a match being extended extra seconds.
-
NOED should not grant more than 1 hook due to the surprise factor... everything else is hard to understand how they are not survivors' mistakes.
Just search and memorize 2 to 3 totem locations. Each memorization gives you 20% chance of eventually nullifying NOED.
But that has to be done not just for NOED, but for any Hex perk Killer might have.
The problem comes when:
- Survivors lack map totem spawn knowledge due to inexperience.
- Survivors cleanse all 5 totems "just in case".
- None or only 1 survivor bothers in searching for few totem locations.
-
It became a "no purchase needed perk" since Demo dissapeared.
I have it equipped with my Wraith and it has been usefull against Spine Chill risky repairers too.
-
It will eventually happen the same, a very narrow meta will appear. My best guess is that the "disbalance or staleness" comes from the open build system.
I would love to see something like how GWENT does the deck build system translated into DBD:
- Survivors 100 max build points, Meta Killers as Nurse 80 max build points, Non Meta Killers as Clown 120 max build points.
- Then each perk, addon / item and offering has a "point cost" to be equipped. Limit cannot be exceeded.
- DH / NOED... high point cost (40 per example) and other not strong perks cost less having now their place as fillers of remaining points.
But i understand a long term change like this can be risky.
-
I'm enjoying killer more since i started to record my matches.
This helped me to notice that there is more room for different decision making than i was aware of, the game is very good at getting on my nerves and it makes me unaware most of the time.
It also becomes a natural "pause and relax" strategy to rewatch matches, sanity check.
You mention that the first down, 2 gens are already repaired.
Are you reaching the most repaired gen/survivor at the start in time? Or are you chasing the one who is just running across the map not repairing?
That is one of the first decision that i started to question myself, what i learned is that protecting specific gens matter more than "winning" first chase as soon as possible.
-
Being able to explore the maps solo with any character. An improved training mode basicly.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2936516#Comment_2936516
I just tried to help you express your feedback so it actually can get heard. You are trying to twist this into something else.
My bad then, past negative connotations might have influenced me at this point.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2936360#Comment_2936360
Well, you obviously can voice your opinion and feedback the way you want. But I am also free to comment on it on a public forum.
and try to view it from my perspective: you have a new forum account and as of yet you only ever participated in topics that are related to the newly added LGBTQ+ representation. I think I already understood that you actually don’t have anything against LGBTQ+ representation and iirc you were also not that upset about that (unnecessary) twitter post about it.
you were talking mostly about character attachment which kinda gets destroyed due to lore additions like this. But there have been multiple of these kinds additions already and if you actually think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed then I have already advised you (and will gladly to it again) to create a new thread in the appropriate forum Section ‚Feedback & Suggestions‘ where you can describe your problem with this kind of approach of story telling and you can do it independently from anything LGBTQ+ relation.
MandyTalk is working as Lead Community Coordinator at BHVR and part of her job includes reading and forwarding feedback from the forums to the team. It would be easier for her to collect feedback on your topic if you (and others) would talk about this not in direct relation to the LGBTQ+ inclusion/representation as these topics always get pretty heated because believe it or not there are plenty of homophobes that are just using other arguments to hide their hatred.
It's not that i did on purpose either, previous posts where closed...
So you determined that a new account that comments into LGTB+ related topics is not appropiate due to... prejudices?
Feel free to bring what i said unappropiate or worth of redirection and the forum rules that support those statements.
Fortunately i'm secure enough to not act based on others' prejudices.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2936295#Comment_2936295
Education and time (and well implemented representation) will lead to more acceptance of similar reveals such as David’s.
as to character models: good point but also… that’s related to something always on the screen and not some background lore text. And again, I am talking about you right now. You haven’t complained before here and you are still active on threads about David’s reveal instead of creating your own thread where you can clarify this is not about LGBTQ+ representation but about tome story’s lore expansions.
and also, I am aware the forums are not representative of the whole playerbase, but they are still one of the most direct channels to reach the devs.
What is to clarify at this point... nothing i said implies me being against LGBT+ representation, does it?
But let's assume that my course of action implies it.
What is the course of action should i have went for you to not feel i'm against LGBT+ representation?
Do i have to met some prerequisites before voicing my opinion on LGBT+ related topics?
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2936188#Comment_2936188
I was simply talking about Dead by Daylight though. Not about any other media or even other video games.
DbDs approach of story telling since the first tome has always been like this: they are adding onto the initial lore and there have been even new (heterosexual) relationships added to characters. It’s just very suspicious that there has never been real complaints like this until this very moment with David revealed to be gay.
and just to be clear: we are not talking about the reveal on twitter. If you like that or not and for whatever reason is completely valid and in most cases understandable. But this is about the fact that while it’s never been stated before now David is confirmed to be gay in the new tome story. And while you personally don’t like it because your head canon told you something different about David, which is okay, but that’s not a good enough reason to not reveal this fact about David.
in this case there was no direct change of the character, since the announcement two years ago it was always known that any character might get their canon sexual orientation/identification revealed, and as long as it doesn’t contradict the existing lore and the writers/creators stand behind it and want to tell this story, it’s not fair to demand them to stop with their approach - especially if it’s only ever been a problem with anything LGBTQ+ related.
i still haven’t seen you or others complain as much about Legions tome story - and there actual retconning has taken place to some degree.
Many arguments have been already answered by now, will try to be additive.
David might have been a more common Identification stereotype for the vocal playerbase, players also might only feel Identified by one character at all, etc...
The statement that there are no complains aside of LGBT+ topics was already covered, did you missed it?
Character model reworks. Now if you expect me to ask every player that might have expressed dislikeness if it was refeering to breaking sense of Identity, it's definetly not going to happen. Yet it is hard to believe noone might felt it when the internet has plenty of cases describing the subjects, right?
It just take some time to read about them.
I fail to see how DBD forum is a more reliable source for objectiveness than whole internet either.
Be patient tho, this subjects will slowly but surely come more, education takes time.
-
The early on anticipation of what is going to happen is what might be killing the fun, not enough variety to be surprising at high ranks.
Hopefully the constant addition of characters and perks can eventually turn the tables, DBD has a good build system to support variety it just needs the right improvements to be found.
-
Many might be disliking the change about David due to the Emotional Attachment to the Character...
Again, feel of Attachment, feel of being Identified as or with.
I'm sure there are more subjects that describe what i refeer aside of Emotional Attachment, Parasocial relationships might be a fitting other.
I was debating with @Mooks on other topic and something interesting came up, that this argument doesn't appear outside LGBT+ related topics.
And i see it has been bringed here one more time.
Google finds near 9 million results (in my language) about just Emotional Attachment to Characters; ranging from Cinema, TV Shows, Literature, Roleplay settings and obviously games.
I told it beforehand, the number of times a subject is brought or precieved to be brought, which seems there is a problem here, is not related to it's validity. As it might be lack of knowledge or education.
If you search for any of the mentioned subjects and still don't find something relatable outside LGBT+ topics within games, i bring you a concise example, character model reworks. Has this happened in DBD?
That also breaks Attachment.
The dilemma that comes in is how to determine the above subjects to be less valuable or worse than creating a new character alltogether.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2936073#Comment_2936073
Just slapping it on a new character would actually be way more lazy than creating a fitting story like they did for David. Also they would get criticized for tokenism and doing it for the money and the surv would be said to have their personality completely revolving around their sexuality no matter what else was mentioned in their background story.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2936048#Comment_2936048
You still can identify with him. You choose not to because you are focusing on his sexuality while there were always traits and stuff in his lore that made him a distinct character from you. Or have you been abandoned by your rich family, are as muscular as him and you often get drunk in bars and get into fights?
also the very first DLC was already not in line with their original position.
That to feel Identified by a Character, sexuality is involved is not a choice.
Is not that players choose how the feel is triggered by... is that there are factors on the character that trigger the feel.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2935180#Comment_2935180
Of course David being the choice wasn’t needed. But it was a great choice as it fits very well with the lore we already have.
you are still focusing only on sexuality. If emotional attachment is applicable to other things then why is no one ever using this argument when it’s not about LGBTQ+? Because even for the tomes that actually retconned initial lore there wasn’t as much criticism or complaints.
You are trying to set limitations on the story telling of the devs by stating they can’t reveal the sexuality of their characters after some time of their initial release, but the way tomes work that’s just not possible. Also it wasn’t out of a sudden, they have talked about their collaboration with GaymerX often times and never have they explicitly stated the representation will be done with a new character.
i used the word shallow because you are focusing only on the sexuality of the character while completely leaving out anything that actually defines the character. Thinking the character itself somehow changed because their sexuality was revealed (and not changed) is shallow.
David sexuality reveal is the subject and an example towards the argument i bring, not focusing on it is nonsensical.
I fail to see how the objectiveness of an argument has to be based on the number of times it has been brought yet,
I wouldn't say no one ever is using this argument outside LGBT+ related topics either, as many might not know they are refeering to breaking emotional attachment when trying to express disliking of character long term changes.
The way it was revealed beforehand has nothing to do with storytelling at all, this is an important distinction. You cannot limit storytelling, when you are not storytelling on the first place.
But i guess it's fair to call it a storywriting limitation in the overall character lore.
The character changed from having an open to interpretation sexuality to a specific one, label this however you want, yet bear in mind you are using negative connotations on how others' feel about it, which doesn't add anything constructive to the debate.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2934770#Comment_2934770
They still have definitive traits especially in DbDs case and that since the very beginning. No one cared that Claudette was a botanist, Jake was Korean, Nurse had a husband she dearly loved, Frank and Julie were a sexually actively couple (which was only added in their tome story and not part of the initial lore) etc. It’s only when it’s LGBTQ+ related that some people suddenly have a problem with it. But they also can never really state what the actual problem is.
Not going to fall for that. Read below.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2934448#Comment_2934448
wait, have I responded to this yet? Anyways..
You don’t need a hint, you haven’t asked for hints for any other tome story which also were released way after the release of the character. This is part of DbDs story telling. If you have a problem with that then you can of course express your criticism, but it’s very suspicious that so many people only ever have a problem with it when it’s LGBTQ+ related, don’t you think?
and again: how is 2 years (=24 months) compared to 9-12 months rushed?
as to emotional attachment: if you are so shallow to be influenced by the characters sexuality being revealed when there hasn’t been a hint towards it in any way that’s completely on you and not BHVRs problem or mistake. Nothing changed about David King. He is still the very same character he used to be.
there won’t ever be a character who a player can completely identify with. If you can identify with a muscular ex-rugby player who was abandoned by his rich family and now punches people for a living you can also identify with a gay muscular ex-rugby player who was abandoned by his rich family and now punches people for a living and if you are incapable of that then there is something wrong with your attitude.
and as to Peanits comment: they were limiting themselves for their first LGBTQ+ representation. Now they are done with that milestone they have stated there can (and will) be more coming.
As you seem to be quoting me with allusions towards things i never said or share and also adding negative connotations in your responses, i think it is time to wrap things up.
- Hinting not being a neccessity for me is a fantastic statement, thank you for telling me what i need. I guess the same that David being the choice was also not needed by anyone?
- A player might not have asked for hints about other characters due to not having the same or even no emotional attachment towards them.
- Emotional attachment is not only applicable to a single sexuality...
- If David sexuality was revealed two years ago, which i don't know, it would still have been years since their initial lore... years without revealing a game character sexuality or hinting it and out of a sudden doing it does indeed feel rushed and unnecessary knowing another character had to eventually come. Want to ask this one again?
- About being shallow, incapable of, having a problem with my attitude... you nailed it there, please explain how someone should be cappable of changing how something feels for them? And in favor of what exactly, your perception of which feelings are shallow or not?
Depending on the nature of your response i might just leave it here.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2934628#Comment_2934628
I mean, you are also always replying to me and you can just stop with that as well.
As to imaginations: as I said that’s not really completely open since Nurse. And you can still imagine anything you want even if it is not in line with the canon lore. No one is limiting you. In the end, even fictional characters can have established determined traits, features etc. that’s what makes them characters instead of avatars.
Characters are players' Avatars within the digital environment.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2934056#Comment_2934056
Which rush are you referring to?
they announced in June 2020 that there will be no further exclusion of LGBTQ+ topics. We know a complement new character needs around 9-12 months of preparation/work before release. Tome story’s should not need much longer as there is more lore but many things as perks, character model etc already exist. The GaymerX collaboration was also announced long ago (I think it’s been over a year).
there has not been any rush. They deliberately chose David King with very likely plenty of discussions if they should start with a new or existing character. And it was and still is a possibility for other existing characters to get tome story’s about their sexual orientation/identity. This one is just a milestone as the first.
and attachment to what? David King has never been confirmed to not be gay. Head canon is and stays head canon and should not limit the creators in what they want to do with their characters. You can of course criticize their execution, but let’s be honest here: the story is well written, especially compared to other tome stories.
It could have been premeditated from day 1.
How many years have players been without even a hint? How is that good character development?
If it takes months to develop a new character, how it is not rushing in comparison?
Don't downplay emotional attachment to a character, i have mentioned it a few times for you to imply there was nothing to be attached in the first place.
Last time, many players could feel Identified as David than now can't. Yes sexuality-wise. Yes matters to probably more than are wiling to voice it.
Do you find that to be nothing?
They are already limiting themselves by acting based on social controversy (Peanits comment), which is far worse due to alienating the portion of the playerbase that grew attachment to pre-reveal David over all those years...
-
@Mandy said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/2FQA9J0U2FTH/5lowwze-5b1-5d.png
Peanits response for those that are interested.
Thank you.
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933390#Comment_2933390
No one ever said it was necessary that it was David. But Peanits comment also speaks for itself, there are not that many free original characters and the way they have written it it’s very well and natural, incorporating past lore and tying in loose ends.
could of course have happened with another free character and could have ended as good as with David. But chances are those that are now complaining about David would just complain about any other character as well.
also we may have less representative potential for David, but more definitive representation in the whole game. And these are not avatars, we have fully fleshed out characters, with story’s already told and many story’s yet to be told.
No one said it, but it's hard not to interpretate it due to some responses i got.
Peanits comment is not much different than what i have been seeing here. I agree to avoiding social controversy as i can assume negative impact on BHVR.
Yet i fail to see which was the rush. A new character could have been slowly or differently developt, maybe with hints about possible sexuality or a short term reveal.
Definetly an abrupt announcement doesn't feel like the best course of action to avoid controversy on the first place either.
Emotional attachment to digital characters is an interesting subject, you might want to take a look at it.
-
@Pukenplag said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933390#Comment_2933390
There is no single argument there on why David is better choice than a new character.
Actually, there are many arguments, some a little above your comment. Let me tell you a few:
1. An LGBT character locked behind a paywall would cause outrage
2. A new character based around being LGBT would simply feel, let's say, exaggerated. It would make it seem their whole personality. You know, it screams tokenism.
3. The new piece of story fits PERFECTLY into David's lore and completes it entirely.
If social controversy was going to happen either way and the new character can more or less be Representative of the Gay stereotype that David is, are these strong arguments?
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933390#Comment_2933390
"There is no single argument there on why David is better choice than a new character."
Yes, there is. And they have been provided numerous times over all 15 pages of this thread. You just, apparently, seem to have selective vision and a superiority complex.
Guys... i said "there", i was refeering to Pukenplag's answer, not that there might not be any argument anywhere else...
Guess the irony of your answer speaks for itself?
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933473#Comment_2933473
exactly this tbh. Peanits gave a very good answer based around this question last week.
Would be to much to ask for a link?
-
@deKlaw_04 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933157#Comment_2933157
You don’t have r to play as someone that represents you tho. I’m a dude and I play as Claire and Jill.
Obviously.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933157#Comment_2933157
necessary was only some kind of inclusion of an LGBTQ+ character because of what they have said before and how they have treated I LGBTQ+ topics different to heterosexual topics.
There is not much negative going on here. Sure, the tweet wasn’t necessary from my point of view but still I see why they did it and there are valid reasons for it.
There will never be a character fully representing a real person in all aspects. David being revealed as gay doesn’t change the character at all. If the sole reason someone chose David as representation because he wasn’t gay then, well, there was never confirmation that he wasn’t gay to begin with and we are not entitled to only having the backstory and nothing else added to the lore of any character. Tome story’s adding new traits, relationships, experiences etc have been a thing for a while now. Also there are plenty of other chars to choose from. Frankly, the character model reworks were far more changing in that regard and while there have been criticism for those it was on a different level than what we are seeing here.
Well we ended agreeing that it was not necessary to be David, which is more than i could have asked for.
Bear in mind that David sexuality not being specified was representative of more sexualities before than now.
@Pukenplag said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933157#Comment_2933157
Well guess what, you don't have to play a character that represents you. Feng didn't represent me, I mained her in 2019. Nea didn't represent me, she was one of my mains. Meg didn't represent me, she was one of my mains. Nancy didn't represent me, she was one of my mains. Jill doesn't represent me, she is my main.
Gay people never had a character to represent them, yet they still played. So find a way to realize that if you need to play cishet straight masculine men to feel male, that's a you problem and not BHVR's
There is no single argument there on why David is better choice than a new character.
I encourage you to take a deep breath before answering, you are not debating with someone who is gonna fall for provocations.
@Viskod said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933012#Comment_2933012
As a gay guy I think it was great. David is one of the original survivors and a pretty popular one at that. I think its much better than making a survivor just for them to be "the gay one" where you can brush off their entire backstory and existence as you reduce it down to them being the "token gay".
This also is not a "retcon" of David's lore. It can only be a retcon if we have a documented history of every thing that happened to him in his life and they took out a portion and replaced it with something else. That's not what happened. We're learning more about him that we didn't know before.
A lot of gay men growing up wind up with girlfriends for some reason or another throughout their life, I had them to back when I was in high school and freshman year in college while still trying to figure myself out. All it does it make him feel more real and relatable to me. Thank you Behaviour.
Even if you might be biased i understand that you might like the anticipation of a character that represents not only your sexuality but your story around it.
This is in essence what i'm refeering to, there might be people out there that were not Gay that could relate to David until this point aswell.
Attachment to the fictional character.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933012#Comment_2933012
Yeah I think it was better this way. It'd either be tokenism if they made a new one or "changing" if they revealed an old one so they couldn't win, and I'm more than happy with this. His story ties up loose ends from his first tome and helps provide representation, as well as just being one of the best written tome stories there are (shockingly, Twins' story is also pretty class). Moreover, revealing a character people are attached to is better than making a new one because of the paywall issue and also that people are already attached to them, rather than making someone whose lore could be as disastrous as Jonah but also be gay causing a bit of a conflict there.
No, this was definitely the better way to do it. I wish they'd saved the Twitter announcement for when his Tome level opened up and the story was available, but outside of that I'm more than happy.
(And for context, I am a gay dude).
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2933012#Comment_2933012
I think this way it was better.
a new character would just be criticized as only being created as a token rep. And regardless of how their backstory would have been written people would say the character is one dimensional and their only personality would be their sexual orientation/identity. It would be either paid (only doing it for the money) or free (pandering). Perks would be criticized to be overpowered because of pandering/underpowered because they don’t actually care about representation.
there is actually way more things people would complain about with a new character. With an old one the argument of retconning is used but it doesn’t have any basis and other than that it’s just the head canon of some being confirmed/deconfirmed which … well. It’s just headcanon.
Similar opinions there, you both composed your answers with better rather than necessary. (Found that interesting)
Neither of you mentions any negative aspect on the reveal yet,
What happens to players that felt David as their choice to represent themselves as?
-
Out of curiosity, who thinks that was necessary or better to reveal David sexuality over creating a new character?
-
What happens with people who might see David as their Avatar or Alter ego for the many years that his sexuality was not revealed, undefined or open to interpretation?
Which takes us to,
If the intention was solely to add Inclusion, was neccessary to break long term Attachment?
-
It's interesting cause noone mentions the nature of disliking the reveal due to attachment, there are many players that see their character choice as their Avatar.
If David's sexuality was before undefined or open to interpretation i definetly wouldn't blame anyone for that.