Avatar

Real_Cheesus

Real_Cheesus

About

Username
Real_Cheesus
Joined
Visits
12
Last Active

Comments

  • Tantrums are generally reportable behavior. If your temper and patience are that thin, I'd recommend trying out some other games. Maybe single-player ones.

  • I don't think it's healthy for players to only use 10% of the game's content and actively ignore the rest. Pop, DS, and other staple perks NEED to be changed or other sub-par perks need MASSIVE buffs. Like huge ones.

    Small game? Cleanse totems twice as quickly.

    No Mither? ZERO grunts of pain as well as ZERO blood spilling

    Saboteur? The first sabo you do each game eliminates that hook PERMENANTLY

    This is not happening? Great skills checks reward TRIPLE repair/healing progression

    Premonition? Shows you the aura of the killer for 5 seconds

    Deja Vu? ALWAYS ACTIVE

    I could go on. Haha

  • The fact that tall grass/reeds and things move when survs walk through them, especially when playing as Spirit ;)

  • Awesome idea. You know things are bad when less than 10% of the game's content is being used...

  • @Carlosylu said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1311251#Comment_1311251

    I really hate this, if I play killer I have fun, I'm a really good killer, so, no problem against SWF red ranks, but if I play survivor... There's just no challenge... This really needs to change...

    You'd be doing God's work if you went online and started stomping some of the bullying SWFs that are just having a hay-day right now. Haha. I'm a mid-rank killer (rank 3-4) and it's very often not fun for me (on PS4) since SWF feels so unfair. How do you deal with survs that have 3-4 extra perk slots? I'd love some advice.

  • Devs have ignored matchmaking, the busted ranking system, SWF balance, optimization, and a bunch of other things so the game has been losing killer players. There aren't enough killers to properly fill lobbies anymore. Things need to be changed quickly or the game likely won't last.

  • @Crowman said:

    Because 3 survivors working on separate generators means that 3 gens are finished in 80 seconds.

    2 survivors working on 1 generator and 1 survivor working on a different generator means you have about 2.5 gens finished in 80 seconds

    3 survivors working the same generator means you have about 2 gens finished in 80 seconds.

    It's just less efficient.

    The OP is asking WHY the system is this way. Like why the devs made the system so that solo gens are encouraged. They said that it's optimal for survs to be on solo gens, so they know what the system is, they're asking why it's that way.

  • Give killers a post-game BP multiplier for facing SWF groups.

    Or if they want to actually improve game balance, have bloodlust accrue more quickly for each lobbied survivor in the game. SWF teams basically have 3-4 extra information perk slots, so killers really need some tangible boost when going into a game with that serious of a disadvantage.

  • Others have said it, but yeah just waiting out the 360 and then hitting them once they are all turned around and trying to regain their bearings is generally how I do it. 360s are very inconsistent, however, and survivors (on console) are generally much better off doing a severe wiggle back and forth since that will more consistently throw off the killer's auto-aim.

  • AFAIK The perk is not working as intended on console (I'm on ps4). It gives you the speed boost BUT NOT the few frames of invulnerability. Right now, it's currently only useful for making distance and getting to windows/pallets that you otherwise wouldn't have time to, but you can't "dodge" attacks the same way you used to be able to.

  • @Dwight_Fairfield said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1304134#Comment_1304134

    I didn't think I needed to explain why they are. The reasons why doesn't change the end result that they are does it? So why do I need to explain something being factual, when we all already know its a fact?

    Telling me Silent Hill is not as big and iconic as those aforementioned franchises just because of American exceptionalism doesn't change the end result does it. So I don't get why you're hung up on that.

    Alright, if arguments based on social patterns and xenophobia aren't the kind of thing that you acknowledge (typical of consumers of mainstream American media), how about some dollars and cents? I heard Americans love that kinda stuff.

    The Silent Hill movie (not even the most popular of the franchise's products by far) grossed about $100 million worldwide, more than 10 out of the 11 Halloween movies released, save the most recent (2018) one which grossed like $250 million. (Box Office Mojo figures) If we include the revenues of the video games, it's not even comparable. Silent Hill is a much larger and more recognizable phenomena than any canonical slasher flicks.

    I ask again, why isn't Silent Hill iconic or classic? Because you don't like it? Because it was made somewhere other than the United States? Because it isn't a cookie-cutter slasher?

    P.S. Please explain what you mean by "factual". You really got me confused there with that vague use of the word "fact"

  • @Dwight_Fairfield said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1304024#Comment_1304024

    You really need an explanation as to why the likes of Myers, Freddy, Leatherface etc are classics, or iconic, or landmarks, or in some cases all three in the horror genre? Ok I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're legitimately ignorant about them, and give you an explanation.

    We'll take the most important one, and my personal favorite, Michael Myers of the Halloween franchise; https://www.indiewire.com/2018/10/halloween-movie-1978-jamie-lee-curtis-john-carpenter-1202012889/

    https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/how-the-original-halloween-invented-the-modern-slasher-movie/

    Now if there's anything you need further elaborated on in that, let me know.

    I've seen all the movies. I'm not denying that they're classics, iconic, etc. If I thought that, I would have said "xyz isn't class, iconic, or landmark horror franchises". It doesn't seem like you're actually reading my posts. I'm saying that you weren't offering up any explanation as to why. Probably because, if you did, you would have to admit that Silent Hill fits the bill just as well as any of these other franchises, but the American exceptionalism that permeates the horror genre prevents creators from other countries from being acknowledged. Silent Hill, at the global level, is more easily recognized and respected as a unique and important contribution to the world of horror than many of the franchises you've listed.

  • @DelsKibara said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1303935#Comment_1303935

    EXCUSE ME?

    HOW CAN YOU NOT SAY SILENT HILL IS NOT CLASSIC OR ICONIC WHEN THEY'VE BEEN STAPLES OF THE HORROR GENRE FOR AGES?

    It makes sense folks would have that perception if they only ever consumed horror through mainstream American outlets. It's kinda a pattern among entertainment industries that whatever Americans like should be the standard, and that American creators have the best judgement of what good entertainment is. Silent Hill is of Japanese origin, so would be equated with subculture or niche tastes if you've only ever grown up watching whatever came on American cable TV.

  • @Dwight_Fairfield said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1303853#Comment_1303853

    I'm having some reality. Help yourself. Plenty to go around ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Being popular does not equate to being classic, iconic, or any way notable in the horror franchise. Nothing to do with what played on cable TV the most.

    Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Saw, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Stranger Things......any of those could be called either classic, iconic, landmarks, or in some cases all three in the horror genre.

    Silent Hill cannot. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

    You've provided no reasoning as to why any of those characters/franchises are iconic, landmarks, etc. etc. You're just telling me they are? I'd love some reality if you have some to spare! :) Are they that way just because you like them? I like some of them too! Especially T.C.M. and SAW. What makes them different than Silent Hill? Is it because Silent Hill isn't an American creation and therefore can't enter into that hallowed realm of horror canon? Why isn't Silent Hill, which is at least as remarkable and popular as these other franchises, a classic or iconic in your eyes?

  • @Dwight_Fairfield said:

    I mean if this had not been promoted as some iconic horror classic I wouldn't be as disappointed. I was expecting something of Alien/Jason/Pennywise stature. Silent Hill is not classic, iconic, or in any way a landmark in the horror genre.

    But the map looks cool and the killer looks like fun.

    I'll have what you're having man. lol. Silent Hill is an incredibly popular multi-media franchise, and the only reason I would guess that you don't perceive it in the same league as the other ones you listed is because you are basing your judgement based on whichever movies were played the most on cable tv growing up.

  • Honestly nothing sounded more generic and cookie-cutter than Jason. Iconic? Sure. Interesting or unique? Not at all. He's just another big hack-slashy guy like Myers and Trapper. I was hoping for anybody but Jason. I don't even play Silent Hill but I'm hyped as hell for this.

  • TBH Nothing sounded more generic and cookie-cutter as Jason. Iconic? Sure. Interesting? Not at all. He's just another big hack-slashy guy like Myers and Trapper. I was hoping for anyone but him (I would have preferred Pennywise but Pyramid looks hype)