SquidBad
SquidBad
About
- Username
- SquidBad
- Joined
- Visits
- 231
- Last Active
Comments
-
@gendoss said:
No. Taunting opponents is a strategy used in pretty much every sport and game ever.
Dude its not a "strategy" to tbag at the exit gate or leave people on the ground for 4 minutes because you have already won. I don't understand how brain damaged you have to be to think that being rude after winning is a strategy.
-
@Pulsar said:
No, we should never ban for something that is inherently subjective.
Most reasonable people agree that we should use objective facts to ban people. Evidently, you prefer subjectivity.
its really subjective when a killer stands over your body nodding at you for 4 minutes while you and your teammates bleed out. Its really subjective when 4 people are t-bagging at the exit gate. lol, no. Intention can be super clear when something is happening repeatedly or over an extended period of time.
-
No.
-
@Tr1nity said:
No.
solid argument
-
oh, its the "DS already got nerfed" argument. It literally doesn't matter. One nerf doesn't rule out another nerf. It doesn't matter that it used to be more powerful, it's only the current state of the perk that matters for future changes.
-
Although a bug, not being able to get on it is a skill issue. Any killer can get on it the same way survivors can.
-
@ClumsyTrapper said:
Trappers take what they can get
Yeah of course, its not the fault of the trapper. Even if it was something they had control over, it's BHVR to blame. There is no reason his base kit should be bugged 5 years after release.
@Hex_Llama said:
It's frustrating when you try to do an action and the game messes up. It looks like, for some reason, it didn't like the position you were in -- maybe there wasn't room to do the animation or something. I've had that happen with other things like unhooking, healing, setting a survivor down as killer -- you have to stand in a really particular place sometimes.
If you notice I did move after the second try. I adapted and it wasn't enough because of the situation.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2519449#Comment_2519449
It's funny how DbD goes from "buggiest game ever" to "this is definitely intended and the developers just lied" at the drop of a hat, depending on what (supposedly) makes the devs look worse.
BHVR just worked on grabs, they know its broken right now. But they released it anyways saying it was fixed. They should have told us that we can still expect grabs to cancel sometimes, they should have told us it would trigger random killer's powers. They didn't. That's lying.
-
@Vulgun said:
They could do what any sane developer would do and, you know.
Probably put grab on its own button, or on spacebar.
I wish. This would be a very good change.
-
@Nathan13 said:
Pain
pain :(
-
its tuesday try using google
-
@GrimoireWeiss said:
I don't agree that the Nemesis one is better. Survivors 90% of the time don't start running from a Huntress when they hear the lullaby unless it's a huge map like Mother's Dwelling where it makes sense.
Also you don't have to go out of your way to activate Wooden Fox as you're going to keep reloading all the time with Huntress. With Nemesis, destroying zombies is a risky strategy because they take time to respawn and they could be on a good position.
Zombies are utterly useless the vast majority of the time, getting stuck or being out in the open etc. Framing like a tradeoff is silly because you're most of the time trading something useless for something of value. And people do run from the lullaby, because it makes them more alert to begin with so they are actively looking around for you.
-
i like your rulebook
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2487811#Comment_2487811
Actually, here's where you're completely wrong. Here's a passage under Section V. Virtual Goods in the DBD EULA:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/W31MR8MXRXEL/image.png
There are a couple of important parts here which I'll highlight below and explain what they mean.
"The Game may, from time to time, feature virtual goods. Virtual goods include but are not limited to virtual items (characters, accessories, items such as “character customization”, power-ups), points, credits, tokens and currency (collectively, “Virtual Goods”) for use in the Game."
The game contains things known as "Virtual Goods", which include virtual items, points, credits, and currency. You may think maps aren't listed here but they are- "include but are not limited to". Maps are classed as a Virtual Good for the purpose of this EULA ("collectively, "Virtual Goods")".
"Virtual Goods are licensed to you, not sold. You do not own the Virtual Goods, and you acknowledge and agree that all Virtual Goods represent a limited, personal, nonexclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable and fully revocable license to use the Virtual Goods, for your individual, non-commercial, entertainment purposes only. You have no right, title, interest, or ownership in or to any Virtual Goods. We may terminate your license at any time and at our sole discretion."
This is mostly referring to the ownership of these Virtual Goods (which is important- you do not own the map, nor any of the characters, and have no right to or in any of these Goods, and this licensed use can be terminated at any time). You do not own Hawkins National Laboratory as part of the base game, nor do you own anything, but license it from BHVR for a fee. Due to them being able to terminate this license at will and at their sole discretion, they can legally remove everyone's license to play on Hawkins whenever and however they want.
"BHVR has the absolute right to regulate, discontinue, update, modify or eliminate any Virtual Goods at any time in its sole discretion and BHVR shall have no liability to you or anyone else for these actions."
This clause just states that any Virtual Goods- yes, including maps- can be updated, changed, or removed ("Discontinue [or] eliminate") at any point in time, and BHVR is not liable to you or anyone else for these actions.
There's one last paragraph that's actually very, very important here too. It just didn't fit on the screenshot.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/9P78L0NZCA5E/image.png
"Note that depending on the country in which you are located, the validity period of purchased Virtual Goods may be limited to a certain period under applicable laws of certain jurisdiction."
"The validity period of purchased Virtual Goods may be limited to a certain period."
That is all. Feel free to read the EULA for yourself here:
https://store.steampowered.com/eula/381210_eula_0
Have a good day!
Great response, my one issue is that that this text defines virtual goods, but maps don't fall under the listed requirements.
"The Game may, from time to time, feature virtual goods. Virtual goods include but are not limited to virtual items (characters, accessories, items such as “character customization”, power-ups), points, credits, tokens and currency (collectively, “Virtual Goods”) for use in the Game.
You may “earn” Virtual Goods within the Game or we may allow you to “purchase” Virtual Goods with “real money” or virtual currencies. Certain Virtual Goods in the Game may be unavailable if not purchased."
This makes a distinction between the game and virtual goods inside, and sets 2 definitions for what counts as a virtual good. This means for it to be a virtual good it must be "earnable" or "purchasable" within the game. Hawkins was not earnable, and it was not purchasable separately from the game, therefore it is not a virtual good and they can't change it. It might seem that "not limited to" would counter this but I think that it means you are supposed to use the later definition to decide if any other given thing is a virtual good. Characters, accessories, items such as “character customization”, power-ups), points, credits, tokens and currency are all earnable or purchasable and therefore I agree with BHVR calling them virtual goods.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if you are, and frankly I hate Hawkins as a map. I don't care if it specifically goes but this sets a precedent I'm not comfortable with. If they removed Macmillan tomorrow I would just quit.
-
@th3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2487605#Comment_2487605
Because at the end of the day it’s Netflix’s intellectual property, not BHVR’s. If Netflix wants to cancel their agreement with BHVR that’s entirely within their right to do so, especially with these licenses being short term and frankly there isn’t much bhvr can do if a license holder no longer wants to have their ip in bhvr’s game.
I don't know nor care about what Netflix sorted out with BHVR because I still lost access to something as a result. BHVR must have some way to get out of this but I just can't find it in the EULA, and I'm really trying. If for some reason they don't have something written in, that must be illegal right?
-
@ryseterion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2487604#Comment_2487604
You didnt buy it with the base game. The map is free for everyone. Not to mention the game has the same base price plus any extra dlcs. You didnt buy hawkins
No it definitely is part of the base game, it's impossible to buy Dead By Daylight without getting the exact amount of Hawkins as to any other map. Are you trying to tell me they could remove Macmillan estate and the huntress tomorrow because they're "free for everyone"? I bought the game in February, I spent real money on it, and included inseparably was Hawkins. It's not separate from the base game because its "free", and besides that it actually isn't free because I had to buy the base game to get access to it.
-
The thing that bothers me is that BHVR's agreement with stranger things isn't my business and shouldn't affect content I already own. I payed money for Hawkins as part of the base game.
-
@Crowman said:
The map is technically not part of the DLC, because everyone has access to the map even if they didn't have the dlc.
It is/was part of the base game I bought, it being in the DLC was my secondary point.
-
@Nos37 said:
This should also include items, addons, and offerings that are no longer obtainable.
Some of my characters still have the disabled Moon offerings, as well as the Brown and Yellow Map offerings, in their inventory, so they will never be prestiged.
----
That said, the OP should know that prestiging only gives a bloody cosmetic (which meant a lot more before they added the cosmetics store) and a slightly increased chance of higher rarity rewards appearing on the Bloodweb (I think Scott Jund said it was a single digit % increase (less than 10%)).
I know everything involved with prestiging, but thank you. I want the achievements + bragging rights + cosmetics for my mains. But those to me are not worth losing access to my event things.
-
@Nathan13 said:
We need to drop this “remove collision from BT” because that’s a terrible idea. There are cases to where I need to tunnel an unhooked survivor.
How does no collision for 12 seconds stop that? Also, it would have to be blanket no collision on unhooked survivors, it would be terrible if you could use collision to find out if BT was there.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
Ds wasn't the issue here, that perk is fine. Bt was the problematic one since it allowed her to bodyblock you and almost force your hand into chasing you, ds right now is fine.
Personally I just want survivors with bt to not have collision with the killer- if you're going to be tunneled they're going to wait it out regardless and if you're not going to be tunneled then it makes it much less abusable.
That's a very interesting idea. I can't think of any issues it might cause ATM (very tired), but it would definitely solve one or two.
-
@Miles said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/271409/ds-adepts-and-aim-assist-are-still-borked
the thing about Adepts is, im pretty sure they were thought of back in the time where a 4k meant merciless victory.
I don't know the validity of this, but regardless of how it came to be this way it should be based on hooks or kills, not the emblems.
-
@Nathan13 said:
If you don’t wanna get hit with DS than don’t open the locker. This is just a way to counter slugging.
People like you get on my nerves so much, I have explained twice why I don't wait out the minute.
"Killers cannot afford to sit out the minute, so they eat the DS or leave."
"if I leave, I waste time. If I wait out the DS I waste time. If I open it and get DS'd, I waste time. If I open it and she doesn't really have DS, that's the only potential outcome where I don't have my time wasted so of course I'm going to risk it."
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2411979#Comment_2411979
Naw. you can still go after the other person. tunneling requires focusing on downing someone to immediately hook them again, you can knock them down if they get in your way, but if you then go after the other person if there are more then two survivors left, it's fair game. just let person 3 heal them back up (and then go after person 3).
yes bro I can "just down the guy with endurance". BT is fine but if you use it to bodyblock, you are asking to be chased instead. If you go into a locker for your DS immediately afterwards, that's just abusing the perk.
-
@TicTac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2412141#Comment_2412141
Yh its aim dressing. But it can look similar.
Are you telling me that when I drop after a survivor & swing midair, causing my camera to 360 & miss, that its not aim assist being jank?
Are you telling me that when I swing for a survivor and my camera jerks towards a tree & slaps it, its not aim assist being jank?
Are you telling me that when I lunge to the left of a survivor with the intent of changing the direction of my lunge back towards the front of them to get another survivor, but it jerks my camera ahead of time is not aim assist being jank?
Edited in fourth example: If you swing at somebody that Dead Hards, your camera will trace them all the way through it.
I am very confident that the game has both aim assist (for lunges) and aim dressing.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Let me get this right - you knew that she has DS, you open the Locker, fully expecting that she will stun you with her DS and after you get stunned, you complain that she had DS?
Yup. If I leave, I waste time. If I wait out the DS I waste time. If I open it and get DS'd, I waste time. If I open it and she doesn't really have DS, that's the only potential outcome where I don't have my time wasted so of course I'm going to risk it. She forced the tunneling, then forced the choice of risking DS, so I am going to complain about it being abused. You saying that I knew the risk therefore I have no right to complain has no logical basis & really says nothing.
-
@Marcavecunc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2353350#Comment_2353350
Oh I mean after reading the same old rehashed "arguments" for the xth time, it gets repetitive, when what would solve your NOED problems is doing bones. You have plenty of time to do them (NOED only activates when YOU complete all 5 generators required to power up the doors, not before, so you can take your sweet time to stroll around doing bones before working on gens) AAAAND there's literally 3 perks to help you find them easily (Small Game, that even includes a counter so you know when to stop searching, if others also do bones, Detective's Hunch, that shows nearby totems when a generator is complete, and since they reworked it you don't even need to be the one completing it, and that new Jill perk I forgot the name of that shows you totem auras and boost speed) and on top of that you have maps to help with the tracking.
So your main issue with NOED is you're too lazy to do bones. Heard it before, will hear it 20 more times over the course of the next 20 days. It's one of the topics that pops up the most around here. That and keys/moris.
You're worse than cynical- you're cynical and wrong. You have immediately made assumptions about my post because you cant imagine genuine feedback for NOED being possible. I play exclusively killer- THIS ISNT A WHINE POST. You people ruin everything. My intentions are genuine.
-
@Marcavecunc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2351135#Comment_2351135
This, seriously. This topic shows up way too often. Just do the friggin' bones. Why do people complain about NOED having "no counterplay" when it's literally a weaker version of Devour Hope? No one ever complains about Devour Hope being OP, why is that? I mean, after merely 3 hooks, you start instadowning everyone. NOED requires all generators to be done to achieve that effect.
If you guys are going to attack the genuineness of my intentions of my post instead of my arguments, that can only be sanely interpreted as you:
A. Not reading my argument
B. Not understanding my argument
C. Not caring about my argument
I am losing my mind trying to understand how you think this is constructive criticism, this is my first and now last post on this forum. Only Milo and Seraphor have been reasonable, and they have my props. Goodbye.
-
@Bran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2352947#Comment_2352947
the main issue are the tokens. the focus point should be the exposed status effect, so the idea is already at a odd start.
the increasing haste helps with chases, but if your not at 4 stacks, it'll be annoying for surv, but how much would it really change?
the tokens make the perk situational at best, if it's not that hard to get each hook why have the tokens to be gained in such a way then?
i wouldn't really consider this a buff in an regard.
Nonono You have just missed the entire point of the post! Making haste the main focus of the rework is INTENTIONAL! Am I being trolled? Is this guy a troll?
-
@Bran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2352666#Comment_2352666
what im saying is
- it's still set on the premise that "it rewards bad killers" or those who don't play well. So, the reworks focus on putting that argument to rest to provide more bonuses to killers who play well.
- because of that, even though i do like the ideas presented, the idea just does not feel like a healthy choice.
- so it doesn't seem like the idea is based on any perk problems, but just another way of "nerfing killer".
just seems like the rework isn't wholeheartedly based on fixing the perk or making it better.
This is only one of the premises, and it's still misrepresented because I don't think a killer that doesn't do well should be stuck with a useless perk slot. Even if you do very badly, getting a couple hooks during a trail is not remotely difficult. The rework does have a strong focus on rewarding killers who do better. You are making the jump in logic that this is an unhealthy choice without actually explaining what specifically is not good. It's definitely not another way of nerfing killer, whatever you're talking about. I play almost exclusively killer, and if anything this rework is a buff to NOED.
Side note: I am reconsidering the change I thought of for totems, but that would take testing to really know what to do.
-
from now on I am only responding to comments that add to the discussion
-
@Bran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2350644#Comment_2350644
this still revolves around whether or not the killer played well or not. which means the better the killer played (hooked wise at least) the more he is rewarded. which plays on the argument "it rewards bad killers", which is why i said the changes just seemed to be based on that argument.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you just acknowledging what I've said? My argument was based on the premise that the perk had problems, and one problem I said exists was that the perk benefitted you more if you didn't play as well. You twisted this those words into "it only rewards bad killers", and said that I was stupid. When I point out that you've twisted my words, you reply with this. I'm unsure if that's supposed to be a counterargument, or an acknowledgment, or whatever.
-
@Power_Guy said:
NoED is fine. It does not need changing or altering, and it does not 'reward bad play'. If your fix is based on that fallacy, then you have started off on the wrong foot. You're trying to fix a problem that does not exist.
Again; NoED is fine.
@terumisan said:
All this does is scream i don't want to do bones and am too lazy to bring counterforce small game detective's hunch or a map
Leave my post. If you want to give feedback, I listen, and I hope BHVR does too. This is useless.
-
@Bran said:
i looked at the changes, the post and i just can't...
still seems as if the change are meant to change it because of the sole reason of "it only rewards bad killers" which in itself is stupid to say.
the changes themselves do seem interesting, but seem just to rework, at least to me, the perk entirely from what it was originally.
That's not what the post is saying. In my TLDR I say: "The perk gives you more value if you do poorly than if you do well" which is not the same as saying "it only rewards bad killers." The rework is intended to reverse that and give you more value if you do well than if you do poorly.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2348874#Comment_2348874
You could at least defend it if you knew which one it was.
If it's a random predetermined dull totem, you'll have almost no chance of it not being cleansed.
I see no reason it couldn't highlight red like active Hexs do. You misunderstand what I've written, the hex is always there, it just doesn't show itself to the survivors until endgame.
-
@Seraphor said:
"NOED now selects a specific dull totem to manifest itself in, and if that dull totem is broken before all generators are completed the Hex will remain inactive."
This would make the perk worthless. It would be better as a lit Hex totem, even if its effect didn't kick in until all gens were completed.
Better why?
-
But if everyone has been hooked then it can happen... just as it is now. It CAN always be in play. And you're basically saying "don't get hooked" as counterplay.
As I said originally, if the problem isn't resolved its reduced. I wouldn't feel cheated being downed with NOED like I do now. The only real solution without explicitly telling the survivor they are exposed (which would make NOED useless) is to solve the frustration. I wouldn't feel as cheated getting downed with NOED knowing the killer hooked everybody at least once, compared to now when some guy hasn't gotten a down the entire game. It's like when you go against a good nurse- you can say "that guy is better than me, he earned it." The only real goal of this rework is to have it be more rewarding and less frustrating to both parties.
TLDR: You're right in that it can still happen, but the real problem is the feeling you get when it does. This is to reduce it.
And again, this still applies. Just it's slightly harder to see.
This is another problem you cant eliminate without ruining the perk, but as before you can reduce it. Here's some things you would be able to do as a survivor to predict NOED, and then why it matters:
- You can know for a fact you are not exposed if there are 1 or more survivors that haven't been hooked yet.
- You can notice the killers speed, unlike with current NOED where it is nearly impossible to tell
- Both the above matter because they can inform a decision like "should I take a hit?", which has a massive impact on the endgame.
That's why there are 4 ways to destroy totems - Small Game, Detective's Hunch, Maps and newly added Counterforce. Everygame I'm running Counterforce, I manage to destroy all totems or 3-4 (cause the team destroys the rest).
I think that's actually fine. Totems are a side objective and don't contribute to escaping most of the time, so if you bring something that is only useful every so often and it pays off, that's good. Survivors rarely bring perks like those into my games, and oftentimes when they do, I don't even have a hex for them to be cleansing. Maybe this is the sort of thing that would require testing to know for sure.
Alright.
Alright.
-
This still happens. Nowhere did you mention anything about NOED just saying "HEY! YOU ALL EXPOSED!". And if it does work like this now... why?Survivors can know for a fact that if not everyone has been hooked, the exposed status cannot happen.
And again, this still happens. And actually you have less counterplay now with increased % movement speed.Its a total guess whether a killer has NOED. if you can first off see them going faster (Which is much easier with the haste buffs) you know it exists, and as I said before if you know somebody hasn't been hooked all game you know you are safe from being instantly downed.
This was fixed. Good job! However - What do you mean by doing badly? Cause for me it's when the killer has like 1-3 hooks by the time 4 gens are done. Which usually means, the survivors could've and should've just done totems.1-3 Hooks by endgame, unless you went against a comp team is IMO poor performance. I don't think expecting survivors to cleanse all 5 totems is reasonable, even if the killer made a lot of mistakes that costed time, especially on maps like Hawkins or red forest, and/or you are solo. (sorry about the wordy sentences)
Does the killer see the "NOED"? Will killer just be dissapointed when literally nothing happens because one survivor decided to do this one random totem that fortunately for them happenned to be NOED?If the associated dull totem was cleansed early, it would explode and make a loud noise notification as if any other hex had been cleansed. No sadge endgame surprises for the killer. Sorry I did not make this clearer.
And this was also fixed technically.Thank you for acknowledging this!
... ? Okay now that's a first.I suppose our experiences are different, but this has happened to me a handful of times, as well as I've done it as killer. If you want to see a video of it happening, just make a quick google search. Plenty of videos out there.