Terratoast
Terratoast
About
- Username
- Terratoast
- Joined
- Visits
- 22
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Sluzzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1760637#Comment_1760637
The best should win! A killer shouldn't get a kill because of a mechanic.
The entity blocking a windows after 3 survivor vaults is a mechanic. The survivor throwing a pallet is a mechanic. Moving faster than the survivor is a mechanic. Etc.
Bloodlust was a mechanic to give Killers a stacking boost to help prevent a chase for going too long even if the survivors still had resources that they would otherwise be able to use to extend the chase.
You'll still win/lose chases through the use of mechanics. Just not this one for this weekend.
-
There shouldn't be a FoV slider, but what Dbd should have is a locked 16:9 aspect ratio and allow the user to change between 16:9 resolutions in the options.
I've got a ultra-wide monitor and I have to manually change my resolution back down to 1920:1080 outside of the game so I don't gimp myself on the vertical FoV since Dbd only seems to care about horizontal FoV and stretches the vertical FoV to accommodate. For more square resolutions this is an advantage. For ultra-wides this is a disadvantage.
-
Your bow idea would likely never fly. Traps are already an instant down if a survivor is tricked into one (and you're close enough to capitalize on it). Adding a *ranged attack*, one of the most powerful abilities a killer could have, would make the trapper way too powerful.
His ultra-rare addons seem fine when you compare the power of them to other ultra-rare addons other kills have.
What trapper truly has a problem with is his consistency.
A trapper that can't even hold two traps feels gimped since you now have to choose between using your trap for trapping a location or holding onto one so you can use it to shut down a loop mid chase. It's always annoying to see a survivor escape on their first attempt releasing themselves from the trap, and I'm sure it's annoying to survivors to fail a dozen attempts to free themselves while the trapper is the entire length of the map away. Default trap locations is also praying to the RNG gods that they give you traps in locations that are convenient to pick up.
I would give the following to trapper to make him more consistent;
- Allow him to carry a max of two traps by default and nerf the respective addons that increase his max traps.
- Change the spawn code of his traps so that they are more towards the center of the map and remove one trap from the max pool available. This way he has more consistent access to traps without being overbearing.
- Freeing yourself from a trap should take a set amount of time (adjust this time accordingly). This will allow the trapper to make a more informed decision of whether or not a survivor is too far away to attempt to capitalize on.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1721990#Comment_1721990
If you care so much about rank, why DC? Do you want competitive, or casual? If you want competitive, it's competitive. Sports teams don't bail on a game because they don't like the team they're against. If you don't DC and don't want people to DC, play ranked. If you want to DC whenever you want, play casual. It's not hard.
People dc'ing and ruining the game for everyone else seems counterintuitive to a gamemode for "fun".
-
I feel like nerfing the interaction speed buff it gives (or simply removing it) would be a fair enough nerf to bring its power down a tad if that's needed. The interaction speed is just icing on the cake since the main purpose of the perk is the additional information it gives.
-
Some consideration should be given to not only balance, but how fun it is to face off against Myers. Some of my most unenjoyable matches are Tombstone Myers matches regardless of whether or not I make it out.
You either spend large portion of the match with very little interaction with the killer since he spends most of his time trying to stare at you menacingly to build up the insta kill. Or you're the survivor that he's chosen to pop tier 3 on and you get one-half chase before you're removed from the game.
But I don't think there's an easy way to change that (while keeping it fair) without seriously restructuring how those addons work.
-
Yes.
-
Ran into a tombstone Myers, and balance arguments aside it's just simply un-fun to play against for the first person he catches. In a single chase he just removes you from the game.
Yes I know, it takes a while for him to build up tier 3. But the first person he catches for the stabby stab is typically the last one who gets stalked after he's already drained others dry.
-
@Justalittlepeeck said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1670134#Comment_1670134
In that case plague would've been op wouldn't she? She can brake all survivors without even contacting with them and since the most effective strat against plague - don't cleanse and do gens, she basically can become ranged one shot killer any time she has fountains available. Does anybody have problems against running red vomit plague while being broken? No. But somehow running iri huntress, whose hatchets are much less trouble in chase is a tragedy.
That would be blatantly ignoring all the other conditions Plague needs to fulfil before she has access to her ranged damage spit while chasing a broken target.
-
Personally, I feel like the BP gain from BBQ and WGLF should just be baked into the game (and change those perks to rebalance them). As it stands, BBQ is an essential perk for players trying to unlock things via playing killer because of how much more BP it awards. I would likely run it even if it didn't have the additional detection portion.
-
The issue I have with it (when I'm playing killer), is when the person(s) with DS go out of their way to make it next to impossible for you to hit anyone other than them via bodyblocking (this can get especially bad if they were rescued with BT).
You either slug them (allowing them to keep DS to try again next hook), or you let them activate DS (giving them tons of distance). In either case, the person you were originally chasing to avoid tunneling gets a lot of distance.
If a nerf to DS was needed, then I would advocate it exhausting the survivor when used (but it can still be used while exhausted). This would still allow it to be used as anti-tunnel (just make sure that you use the exhaustion perk to extend the chase as long as possible first), while punishing those that treat it like an invulnerability period since they wont have access to their exhaustion perk afterwards.
-
Hex: Ruin is very strong but it's also very unreliable. I've been on both ends of the bad totem spawn and have had it killed and been the one to kill it within the first minute of the match.
Barbecue and Chili aura reading only triggers if you're outside a very generous range (40 meters, a larger distance than both Spine Chill and Premonition).
It will not trigger if you're in a locker so a common tactic is to go into a locker when you feel like someone is about to be hooked (you can tell if someone is being carried because their bleedout meter freezes) and hide out the 4 seconds. Make sure you're in the locker before the hook.
Another method you can use is to make it look like you're going in one direction during the 4 second duration, then change direction once the aura reading has ended.
-
@MiddleMang said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851966#Comment_851966
Balanced Landing has been the way it has been for a long time, I don't see why all of a sudden it's a huge problem. I figure that's "meeting half way" anyways.
Spirit has been the way she was for a long time, but the nerf to her was appropriate. DS was how it was for a long time before the nerf, but the nerf to that was appropriate. Insta-heals existed for a long time, but the nerf to that was appropriate. And so on.
Just because an aspect of the game remained unchanged for a long period of time doesn't mean that it should never be looked at for re-balancing.
-
That keeps the part of the perk that is the problem and removes the part that wasn't the problem.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851515#Comment_851515
This would be fine, if Balanced Landing had more spots to trigger from. Instead, it's not just a super strict exhaustion perk with maybe one or two spots on 75% of the maps, most of them not exactly optimal in the first place, zero spots on like 10% of them, and only really viable on the remaining 15%.
Why would I use an exhaustion perk that's worse than any other exhaustion perk 85% of the time without using a map offering to guarantee the map I get which are the maps that by the way, are still problematic whether you have Balanced Landing or not?
The benefit you get from a BL activation (in the update) will still be more than the standard speed boost.
A normal survivor dropping not only doesn't get a speed boost but is also greatly slowed from the fall.
With BL you get the speed boost and ignore most of the slow. If we were to compare this to Lithe's activation boost, it would be as if Lithe gave a speed boost and also made the vault activating it much faster. That's not the case obviously nor should it be, since Lithe has a lot more opportunities to fulfill the conditions. BL turns situations that are extremely poor for survivor into extremely good for survivor.
I agree that the developers need to update some of the maps with more vertical aspects but I still think that BL needs to have the passive benefit moved to the exhaust all the same.
-
@Jejune said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851515#Comment_851515
In the current state of maps quite alot of them has a chance to spawn ZERO (0) elevated spots that could be used to trigger BL.
If you can't use BL on a map prior to the nerf then the nerf doesn't really change that does it? Having maps with zero vertical aspects is a separate problem.
Edit:
Though come to think on it, there are several perks that are often ham-stringed by getting bad luck with maps/killer/map placement so it's not like it would be unusual anyway.
Think about most Hex totems. It could be practically useless to the person running it if the totem spawn is extremely bad.
Or DS. What good is DS if the killer has a mori ready (other than trying to force the locker grab)?
-
@Rezblaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851467#Comment_851467
"Strange that many people continue to play the game despite how much you're making SWF to be then."
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/981/VBROUF544PZS.png
The rest of what you're saying basically conjecture; suggesting that because you don't know anyone who would play the game solo means that you and your friends are the only caste of people in this game that keeps it from dying. It's own form of hubris if you ask me.
And no, party systems isn't game health. Game health is assuring that the game is fair, fun, functional, and replayable. Not all of this criteria needs to be met for a game to be unhealthy. SWF makes games unfun for those who have to face larger teams of them, and it breaks the functionality of the game. Again, ignoring everything else that SWF straight up BREAKS because it gives you the motivation to play.
In truth, the only reason DbD has lasted as long as it did in the market is because it has no real competitors. Other horror games of a similar genre taste fail due to financial trouble or too small of design teams.
DbD may have started off kicking out competition by merit, but its clearly affected its overall health as a game. I know for sure that if another game came out of the spotlight, even with the loads of money I spent on cosmetics on this game, I would jump ship in a heartbeat. That's why I got my eye on the Hide Or Die rework coming up.
Also, you keep acting like I want to completely remove party systems in this game; I don't. What I want, is the game's fundamentals to make going against SWF groups VIABLE without relying on Spirit or Nurse.
I want the issue FIXED. Not removed.
Ah yes. A meme. Okay, not bothering to read the rest. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
There shouldn't be any perk that can exponentially extend a chase.
All other chase related perks are consumed for the chase when used (while fulfilling the proper conditions). BL in it's current form essentially gives the survivor a constant passive that changes their overall ability during a chase.
This means that the developers always need to make their maps while keeping two different states of survivor in mind. Those that have this passive and those that don't. All other chase perks may make certain loops/tiles extremely powerful but they can only do this once per chase (provided that they didn't get exhausted by something else). Then they can be treated like normal.
-
@Rezblaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851059#Comment_851059
I want you to spend the next 24 hours playing as any killer lower than High Mid-Tier against 4 man SWF teams, and I want you to tell me with a straight face that this sort of gameplay is healthy for the game.
If this was the type of gaming experience to be expected, nobody would play this game. The only solace is that experiences in this game are about as random a portion of its mechanics. That's what keeps most people playing.
Also, I enjoy the False Dilemma you craft from this; the fact that if a game has less players it automatically means its dying. Nothing like devaluing the meaning of the term "dying game" than to spin any loss of any amount of players into a game that's on lifeline.
I don't know a single person who plays killer with any sort of seriousness who talks about Survive With Friend groups with no distain in their tone. And its no wonder.
You completely ignore game health in favor of "Well it got them a lotta players and money" which is ironically the issue most games in this industry have when approaching their games; bottom line.
"I want you to spend the next 24 hours playing as any killer lower than High Mid-Tier against 4 man SWF teams, and I want you to tell me with a straight face that this sort of gameplay is healthy for the game."
If I face a lot of SWF teams that just reinforces my argument that SWF is bringing a lot of players.
"If this was the type of gaming experience to be expected, nobody would play this game. The only solace is that experiences in this game are about as random a portion of its mechanics. That's what keeps most people playing."
Strange that many people continue to play the game despite how much you're making SWF to be then.
"Also, I enjoy the False Dilemma you craft from this; the fact that if a game has less players it automatically means its dying. Nothing like devaluing the meaning of the term "dying game" than to spin any loss of any amount of players into a game that's on lifeline."
That's the truth of a multiplayer only online game. I didn't see you claim that Friday the 13th was going great. Multiplayer only online games are greatly harmed by dropping player counts.
"I don't know a single person who plays killer with any sort of seriousness who talks about Survive With Friend groups with no distain in their tone. And its no wonder."
I don't know a single person that would still be playing the game if SWF wasn't available. Like I said, this game wouldn't have even been considered by me or any of my friends had there been no option to queue together.
"You completely ignore game health in favor of "Well it got them a lotta players and money" which is ironically the issue most games in this industry have when approaching their games; bottom line."
Making sure that the game is enjoyable for a lot of players IS for the health of the game.
You completely ignore the health of the game in favor of only appeasing a much smaller subset of it.
There are other methods of bridging the gap that voice-comms give other than straight up alienating people who play with friends. The Kindred change is a good example of that.
-
@Rezblaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850979#Comment_850979
F13th had a party system. It still died. That doesn't bode well for your argument.
DbD came out on top despite being released FIRST without the party system, not counting the beta. F13th had it since the beginning, and still did not live longer than DbD.
And you're trying to tell me that party systems are what make and break playerbases in games? Bullcrap.
Either your argument is that games RELY on Party Systems to have strong playerbases, which is contradictory toward what happened between F13th and DbD, or your argument is reduced down where a game is able to compete and outlive other games based on merit alone, which goes against what everyone here is trying to claim.
Which is it? Are Party Systems absolutely 100% necessary as soon as a game releases or it will die months later? Or can a game make some distance based on its merit or comparative quality?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850971#Comment_850971
I disagree entirely. Large playerbases -inevitably- create toxic playerbases. The amount of toxicity that's created varies, but I've had almost no issues with small communities being friendly, whereas I've had numerous with larger ones. Its just math; the larger your playerbase is, the bigger chance your game has, intentionally or not, attracted less than friendly figures. Depends on a lot of factors, but don't kid yourself; large playerbases are likely going to be more toxic than smaller ones, its just about margin and other factors.
Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying.
Lastly, "It's asymmetrical so it's always going to be unbalanced" is just an excuse for those who don't want to think about the intricacies of the game. I don't argue with people who don't want to think. Stop making excuses and start thinking of the implications of mechanics added to games, or just stop arguing, because at this point you're not trying to defend or attack a position, you're just trying to completely devalue the topic altogether.
"Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying."
So you're taking the stance that no multiplayer is the only way that a game can lose players? That's a strange log to stand on. There are many ways for a game to lose players. Not allowing friends to play together in an obvious multiplayer cooperative game is one of them.
No playing with friends -> far fewer players.
Far fewer players in a multiplayer only game -> dying game.
"Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying."
There is no one aspect of a game that can keep a game from dying. But there are several aspects that can cause a game to die.
Lack of interesting gameplay, lack of replay-ability, performance issues, and so on.
As I stated and have others. I simply would not have ever picked up the game without SWF.
"Lastly, "It's asymmetrical so it's always going to be unbalanced" is just an excuse for those who don't want to think about the intricacies of the game. I don't argue with people who don't want to think. Stop making excuses and start thinking of the implications of mechanics added to games, or just stop arguing, because at this point you're not trying to defend or attack a position, you're just trying to completely devalue the topic altogether."
Stop making excuses that SWF is poor for the game when it has been great for the game. The advantage of communication can just as easily be gained from someone posting their discord link in chat. The topic is devalued from the start because the idea that the game would be better-off without SWF has no value.
-
@Rezblaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850935#Comment_850935
Only in DbD communities will people argue for money over game health.
Its only been a point of frustration since the launch of SWF.
But what do I know; everyone knows that having a quality salad is nothing compared to throwing a bunch of garbage on it just because its more stuff.
If this game was built and designed in a way to make friend groups balanced, we can talk about the benefits that it brought to the table. But they didn't, and its an issue that has yet to be synergized with the game since. The amount of attention and pressure a Killer has to put in Red Ranks and SWF groups is greatly outweighed by the pressure survivors can put with just one player. Killers have to be near impossibly efficient to pull off against full SWF groups.
No, not every group you go up against will be full 4-man SWFs, but that's beside the point; until that issue gets addressed, which it has yet to be, it'll be a point of contention in the community.
IDK about you, but I would much rather have a smaller community than a toxic one.
That's just being elitist. A larger playerbase doesn't inherently make a game more toxic. People would still be complaining about how overpowered perk/killer/ability XYZ was.
It being a point of frustration is irrelevant if it was needed to keep the game alive.
More players increases the longevity of the game. You can't both have an extremely small playerpool and still have enough funding to continue to push out updates to keep people coming back to the game.
Especially for games like this. The smaller the player pool the worse matchmaking gets. The worse matchmaking gets, less people will join and more people will leave.
Multiplayer only games easily die once enough people stop playing and it can't gather enough new faces.
This will never be a completely balanced game. It's a 4v1. SWF is here to stay and the game is better for it. Implementing a nerf to specifically people who queue with friends will drive away people who want to play their games with friends.
-
@Rezblaze said:
Devs shot themselves with that bullet a while ago when they reversed their decisions to disallow friend groups. All the way during the first few months of release.
SWF was an implementation done out of popular request. And you see how well this game stood that test.
... It gathered a lot more players?
Without SWF I wouldn't have given this game a second glance nor would have recommended it to any of my friends.
-
I wouldn't mind a Codex page in the client that describes perks, abilities, etc more in depth.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/848139#Comment_848139
Fixing the Maps would fix the problem. Haddonfield will still not be a Map where you want to be as Killer.
BL should stay like it is, but what could be possible would be that the Stagger Reduction only applies while healthy. This would remove some of the problematic areas if the Killer gets a Hit before (taking the Speed Boost from the Hit to run to the Myers House for example) and also give a reason to heal for BL-Users, which also wastes some time.
But overall: Map Fixes over crippling Perks.
If I was a developer I can see the desire to fix the perk over trying to reshape the map to not make a single perk busted. Trying to make sure every map is designed around the possibility of BL abuse would limit what they can do with maps vertically.
Personally, I feel like there should never be a survivor perk that gives a passive effect to make the chase longer. All other perks that have anything to do with a chase extend the chase a little bit when the conditions are met and used, but is then expended. From that point the survivor must rely only on base survivor abilities to avoid the killer as long as possible.
Having a perk with a passive ability to make themselves constantly stronger in chase means that every map must keep two different states of survivors in mind. Those that use the perk and those that don't.
-
It shouldn't get a passive effect that can exponentially extend the chase depending on layout.
Making slow vaults a little faster would be fine since you're not going to be slow vaulting to extend the chase. You'll be using it to be stealthy.
-
@luka2211 said:
What if it just had the passive effect of the 75% stagger reduction only?Would it be better than it being an exhaustion perk?
The reason the stagger reduction is being tied to the exhaustion is because that's the part that's being nerfed. The exhaustible speed boost isn't the problem. It's the constant advantage you get with the stagger reduction in certain spots on certain maps.
It turns some locations into near infinite loops, something that no perk should do.
-
Rank and devotion level rewards.
-
@Blackburne said:
I t-bag the ######### out of killers as often as possible.
Gotta love the tilt and the fanmail I get. It's really just your fault for getting tilted because somebody is pressing his ctrl key repeatedly. The fact that so many people are so touchy makes it a viable strategy too. That's the real mindgame. Tilt them until they can't think straight anymore. No ######### given.
I find that the people who t-bag are also the most likely ones to get really salty in the post-game when they get camped or tunneled.
Assuming they don't immediately rage DC when they get caught.
-
@Atrushan88 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/826310#Comment_826310
To be honest I don't think Calm Spirit is even that effective against Doctor. It prevents screams, but if you're running Restraint addons, it doesn't prevent tier up screams, and it doesn't prevent madness build up, meaning Doctor can still cuck your item use.
Oh, so it only mostly destroys his main mechanic unless Doctor makes sure to always run a specific class of addon. Then it only kinda destroys his main mechanic.
It's still a Perk that remains extremely effective against Doctor when compared to all other killers. Just as Saboteur, Slippery Meat, and Small Game have additional effectiveness against Trapper.
-
@MrsGhostface said:
Killers can see survivors, who they’re playing as, what they’re holding. Why shouldn’t survivors get to at least see the killer they’re playing against? Dodging isn’t an excuse because killers always do it.
Because there exist perks that range from soft to hard counter specific killers. For example, the Doctor runs at an extreme disadvantage against anyone with Calm Spirit.
Whereas the killer only has one thing they know for sure, the item you're carrying. Survivors can even find items while they're in the match or change them mid-match when they find another one (or give it to someone else). Survivors don't have unique qualities between them since it's just about the perks.
-
@Atrushan88 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/826240#Comment_826240
I mean if it didn't cost to buy the base game and the Rift didn't exist(or at least it just gave you the premium and free tracks automatically), I don't think it'd be so bad. At least then I wouldn't get 15 year old douches in my games on the weekends.
Pay to Play implies that there are monthly payments. It's not a payment model that works for anything other than large MMOs with tons of content. This is not a large MMO. This is also a game with a lot of third-party IPs that likely need to have the money spent on them separate from everything else (so that they aren't taking a cut for the entire game instead of just for their purchases).
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/824347#Comment_824347
The other reason I'm reserving judgement is because it hasn't even been confirmed that we're going to have to do any of those challenges - in fact, it's been explicitly stated that they're subject to change prior to release. I just don't see the sense in getting preemptively worked up over something that might not even happen.
That's fair. But getting worked up about the future challenges is the best way to make sure that they change them prior to release. Because as it stands I don't think completing all those objectives is something that a casual player could be reasonably be expected to complete.
There are several things that would help and changing the difficulty of the challenges is one of them. Getting the same amount of rift fragments for much more difficult objectives is also off-putting and will inevitably slow down fragment gain.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/824297#Comment_824297
I'm reserving judgement on level 4 until it actually comes out and we see how difficult the challenges are going to be in practice. It may be that they turn out to be easier in practice than in theory.
I mean, you can try to accomplish the challenges now to test.
Actively try to hook 5 people in the basement and see how it goes. Or flashlight save twice in a round.
Granted it will be a lot easier to do right now since you wont be fighting other survivors for the same objectives nor would you be playing against people who know that you're trying to complete an objective and plan against it.
The biggest problem with the plunderer challenge in this tier wasn't finding all the chests in a single round. It was the other survivors that were also searching through chests trying to complete challenges.
It would also be extremely obvious to survivors when you're trying to get multiple hooks in the basement. They might even DC to be a jerk and prevent you from doing so.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/824270#Comment_824270
I don't see that as an issue as far as earning xp goes. It took me about 18 hours of gameplay to finish level 1 of the tome. I've played about twice that since then just in ordinary games. The way I see it, all that will change in level 4 is I'll be spending a higher proportion of my game time working to complete challenges, instead of completing them all in the first day or two and then playing normally for the next few weeks. I still get the same amount of Rift Fragments from it in the end, they'll just be a bit more spread out.
This is an issue when concerning how many Rift fragments a casual player could expect from the archives. For every one of the difficult master challenges they fail to do that's another 5 fragments the player has to pump more time into to make up for it.
All of the challenges in the 4th level are master challenges. Failure to complete it in one round means that you're no closer to completing it than when you started. A player can easily be stuck early on in the 4th level (I suspect at the blind rescue 2 times above and 5 hooks in basement below). Getting stuck means they can't even attempt the later challenges for rift fragments.
-
@Fibijean said:
You're forgetting two important things - (a) you earn about half of your Rift fragments from completing challenges, and (b) you earn xp while you're playing matches to complete challenges.
So the total time to complete the Rift will probably end up being closer to 100 hours than 200. Personally, I'm guessing around the 120 mark. Which is still a fair way above the devs' original estimate of 70-80, but not so catastrophic as some people's inflated estimates would have us believe.
The issue is the later levels will have far more difficult challenges. I have no delusions that I will be able to come close to full clearing level 4 from what has been leaked. I suspect level 3 will also have a few challenges that I will be unable to finish.
-
@HamdaN said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/821752#Comment_821752
is this a literal joke...? do you play survivor? the server latency is THROUGH THE ROOF. youre hit through every pallet, when the killers even looking the wrong way and so on. huntress is a whole new mess with bugs and hits. vaults are worthless, dead hard doesnt work, the QOL for a survivor right now is at its lowest
My survivor latency has been fine.
It's been far more consistent than previously when it all revolved around how the killers ping was relative to me.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/823561#Comment_823561
In the same way that denying heals can be abusable - because people do it just to deny bloodpoints to people they don't like. Only in this case, it would be much worse, because not only is it scummy and petty, it can seriously screw someone else over, because going for an unhook is putting yourself in a lot more danger than healing someone is.
But if someone were that determined to deny bloodpoints to deny an unhook, couldn't they just suicide on the hook once they see you getting close?
-
The real truth is no matter what the balance change there will be people upset about it because they were accustomed to it.
Said upset people are more likely to head to the boards and complain.
I'm pretty happy with many of the changes such as the changes to DS, insta-heal, Freddy rework, and endgame event.
Heck, I think the dedicated servers are a step in the right direction since it gives a better overall experience for survivors. No more worrying about a killer that destroyed the whole team because they were lagging either intentionally or unintentionally.
-
@December_1863 said:
queue times are bugged at the moment, takes ages to find games on both sides.
Well that's kinda #########. I feel like I'm missing out on the double bloodpoint weekend whenever I give up waiting for a queue.
-
Since the primary reason I play this is to play with my friends, removing SWF or moving it to a queue that has a horrible queue time would kill the reason I play this game (as it likely would for my friends).
I may play killer a fair amount but this game will not hold my attention if I can only play it solo. I have plenty of other solo games that have much more content.
-
This would cause one giant problem:
Severely punishing all players for simply having a game last a little too long. Especially killers that have a slow start.
3 Gen camp is not being held hostage, survivors shouldn't have let the situation happen and the worst case scenario for the survivor is dying. They are not being held hostage, the killer is using a tactic to win.
Getting 3 survivors against you doesn't force the killer to dc.
Getting a swf doesn't mean that the killer is incapable of hitting or hooking people. Killer has lots of tools such as bloodlust to eventually catch survivors. Limited pallets and item durability means that a vital resources to avoid getting caught by the killer is limited. The longer the game goes on the less survivors have to deal with the killer.
-
@OrionsFury4789 said:
No because the only reason survivors do that is to keep from getting dodged it’s sad that killers can’t play against items majority of the time and just flat out leave if any flashlights enter the lobby , why are people like this even playing if they can’t handle intended features?I can only speak for my own actions, but I never dodge regardless of which items survivors bring. If a killer was so intent on not being there when a flashlight is brought, what is stopping them from disconnecting immediately?
-
The survivors are not meant to know which killer they face, so the survivors should not be getting any amount of information about the killer until the match has started. The killer is suppose to know which survivors and which items are being brought.
So the only thing that needs to be done is something to prevent the survivor last-second item switch that sometimes happens.
-
@MhhBurgers said:
I basically got my DAoC accounts unbanned through the threat of a major lawsuit, yes of course mythic ent in 2001 pretty much struggled in comparison to companies like BHVR but that means you would just need a plaintiff who's willing to go the extra mile.That's like saying stealing is fine if you're willing enough (and them not willing enough) to take them to court over it so instead they let it pass. Because they're not willing to put up with mutually assured destruction that is court costs and would rather take a small loss.
It's a stupid tactic that nets you itty bitty gains (like your account), at the risk of pretty much everything. A company that calls your bluff and takes you to court might end up counter-suing you for their court costs to defend an frivolous lawsuit.
-
I probably will once I've burned out on Smash Bros and all my friends hate me. As much as everyone is pointing out that the killer is pretty trash, it still looked entertaining to play.
-
@MhhBurgers said:
@Global said:
First thing. No sadly with alot of games now a days you dont own them. They are "licensed" to you which means they can do whatever they want with it no matter what. You know that EULA you agreed to or couldnt play? yea. Thats what that is.Again in some countries you can take them to court, the cost is mostly just too high for such a petty thing.
As far as I know you're completely free to not accept the contract or request to leave the contract. But that would mean that you're no longer able to play the game on their servers or receive additional content. That's the way things work and the original agreement when buying the game.
You can't just ignore part of the terms of the agreement while enjoying the benefits (receiving updates and using the servers) of it. If you don't want to be part of the contract you also don't get access to the benefits of said contract.
-
What would the motivation for the survivor be to use this and not just pallet loop when the pallet loop is much more reliable?
-
@Gamer2790 said:
So what are u saying? That stealth is the only way players can survive in a game? Players can survive without even having to be stealthy.I welcome for you to actually point out where I said that stealth is the only way players can survive. Stealth is just part of the gameplay, a very good part. Allowing people to use killer in 3rd person mode would greatly ruin that gameplay.
There are other games (such as Friday The 13th) where the killer has third person view and are still survivable.
There are several differences between this game and Friday the 13th including (but not limited to):
- Several more methods for the survivors to escape/win
- The ability for survivors to outright KILL the killer, which is one of the victory methods.
- Much larger maps with far fewer ways to take advantage of 3rd person perspective.
- Killer movement that's slower than the survivor movement except when doing that teleport whoosh thing.
They are different games. Claiming that X game has done it like you suggested doesn't help your argument, especially since you're pointing at a game that's doing much worse than DbD. Why should Dbd be emulating them again?
-
@Gamer2790 said:
Tbh, if devs had just made the option for killers to switch between first and third person from the start before even releasing the game, people would still be playing the game and wouldn’t be making such a big deal about killers having third person view.I doubt that. There would be a significant amount of discussion about how 3rd person provides too much of an advantage over first person for the killer. You're dodging the point.
The game in its current state is killer is in first person and survivor is in third-person. I believe that to be the best combination for the best gameplay. Changing either (killer allowed third-person or survivor forced into first-person) ruins much of the stealth aspect of the game.
-
@Gamer2790 said:
That is why I am saying that there should be an alternate mode for players who don’t mind going against killers with third person view.
This would just split the player base into, "survivors that want a better chance" and "no one else". Similar to the requests for killer to have the option to not have any SWF survivors in their matches.
Realistically, how often do you think a survivor would opt into an option that does nothing for them other than make the game harder?