ToolboxMotley
ToolboxMotley
About
- Username
- ToolboxMotley
- Joined
- Visits
- 43
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Entità said:
@Fabijean @ToolboxMotley That's the solution: the survivor with No Mither shall begin the trial healthily, but, if wounded, cannot be healed and only survivors can see their state.Do you all agree?
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable and easy approach to making No Mither usable.
-
@Entità said:
I agree that No Mither is a barter: one health state less in exchange of unlimited recovering from dying state. Well balanced, but not well built: its secrecy is essential to give survivor the opportunity to be left on the ground, while now they have a signal on their head: "Remember: I can fully recover, hook me NOW!", which makes it really weak, completely useless.It must be reworked: the survivor should act (no cries!) and appear healthily in the HUD, but one hit should be enough to put them on dying state; if they recover, they should become healthily, again.
Even being one-shot or starting out appearing fully injured, without the Broken icon, shows off the perk's presence. Would it be that bad to start out healthy as normal, and still be able to take a hit, but just not be able to be healed after the first injury?
-
You know, I was starting to write up a big response, but I'm not lying when I say sexuality doesn't matter. Neither do race or gender, by the way. Maybe I just think that as a result of my upbringing, caring more about how a person lives than how they were born.
Anyway, this isn't worth the condescension and stubbornness. Have a grand old time wallowing in the puddle. Back to the ocean for me.
-
Aha! It finally went through. We can continue the screaming match if so desired. I'll admit to feeling a bit of burnout, though.
-
@Wolf74 said:
lol
So you trade a health state for a borrowed time effect, that forces the killer to chase you for a second hit?
So it would be the same as actually having 2 healthstates, you just get some extra buffs and ignore insta downs.
Yea, sounds totally legit.... hahahaha… not!^^You also go down in just one normal hit, albeit with a delay between the hit and the downage. It'd depend heavily on how long it takes. I'd been thinking, as Fibijean suggested, a 10-15 second timer. Many chases will last longer than that after the first hit, meaning that a persistent Killer can actually have an easier time of things if the Survivor is good at evading them. And with the single-stack approach, if the Killer catches up before those 10-15 seconds, it functions just like a normal chase would have. The lack of bleeding is almost negligible anywhere but Meat Plant and Memorial Institute, which are heavily Killer-sided as it is, which leaves the self-revival and, yes, "ignoring" insta-down attacks. Until 10-15 seconds later when you faceplant. The Killer can still keep on you after that hit, or even let you go and find you afterwards (remember, you're still braying like a donkey while injured unless you take Iron Will). It can maybe secure an escape once the gates are opened against a Hillbilly, Myers, or NOED, but it's otherwise not going to be winning the game for you without a heaping helping of skill and/or teamwork. If surviving heavy attacks like those is too much, that aspect can always be removed, or perhaps reduce the timer to 5 seconds. But I don't think it'd make too big a splash with the 10-15 seconds.
-
@Wahara said:
Sorry about your post...that keeps happening to me too.I wonder if it's an automatic thing when there are certain/too many politics-related trigger words.
-
Uh oh, my post needs approval before it'll go through, now. Is it time to be jailed for wrongthink?
-
My most recent "attempt to discredit you" is probably the most effective way I've depicted the argument everyone is trying to make; that it's a superfluous addition and a waste of space to anyone that isn't part of the Progressive religion.
How about Jewish characters? A lot of them are still getting a pretty awful hand dealt to them. Christians? I don't know steeped you are in social justice warrior ideology, so it's possible you think Christians have always been mega-oppressors at the forefront of any and all injustices the world over, but they've been pretty screwed, too. How about the Irish? Can't really tell who's Irish at a glance, would have to have it shoved in somewhere in their bio, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go into Irish history while trying to describe the character.
Gotta ask, do you want equal treatment, or special treatment? None of the other characters have had their sexualities disclosed. That's a pretty good blank-slate approach, a way to ensure that players can impose their own stories as desired. Heterosexuality is indeed the norm, but whose fault is it for assuming that every character must be straight? Society, for not forcing everyone to be gay? Or yours, for doing the actual literal act of assuming they must all be straight?
You may not like it, but my previous post does in fact convey the main point being put forward. It is irrelevant information. Claiming that no one is listening to you and then insulting them while crying that they're moving the goalposts when they do address your arguments doesn't change that.
Victory for the LGBT acceptance movement is for sexuality to not matter. You're instead insisting that it does matter, and apparently, that society must "pay them back" for abuse that most in this day and age have never actually experienced. Some have, yes; just as some people with physical deformities, sickly tendencies, and food preferences have been abused for who they are. Sometimes, people have a crappy time thanks to other people targeting very stupid aspects of their personality. I was bullied for having long hair and liking Sonic the Hedgehog as a kid. That's not large-scale oppression, that's a few people being #########. Oppression of homosexuals is largely over, at least in the USA, and clinging to it will just keep it here for longer.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, and a line or two of flavor text wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd give a warning to the developers to not take it too far, making gay people seem like the attention whores that efforts like this have made them out to be, and a warning to you and Legend, to not let something so trivial consume the entirety of your being. You're more than who you're attracted to, and you live in the present, not the past. Your body, does, at least; your mind, well, that looks to be stuck in the past, a bit, but it can always catch up.
-
@jmaximo93 said:
What other reason would there be for that perk then?Poor design. Surprisingly, such a thing does sometimes happen in video games.
@TerminalEntropy said:
Actually it's kinda interesting idea, but I'd vote for one stack off BT effect. An refreshing BT would be too much with current game time. After all it unlocks a potent ability to stand up all by yourself, the fact that hardly any Killer would leave them be to do so is...well, obvious choice.Yeah, I was more figuring just one absorbed hit, but offered up the invincibility idea since absorbing one hit is basically just like starting out healthy, but not as good. The only real benefits would be the self-revival and lack of blood pools, while the negatives are still only technically needing one hit to go down, and moaning like a porn star. But, even just one hit is better than what it is now, and makes a lot of sense with the self-revival, in my eyes.
-
@Floofy said:
But, let's say instead ofher being addicted to gaming and therefore rejected, she was rejected for being lesbian. Okay, where now? She's lesbian, does she follow the dream of being a gamer? There wasn't setup. The story doesn't work. Let's say she still is a hardcore gamer. She loved games, and was kicked out of home for it. Btw, she's gay. Does it change the story? No. It doesn't. Nothing about their sexuality changes anything in the story. There is no reason to add the sexuality.Dwight now has six toes on his right foot, and Jake is now left-handed. Let us add some lines to their backstories to reflect these facts so that there is representation.
Wait, wait, no. Dwight has six toes, but also suffers from bipolar disorder. Furthermore, his favorite food is cordon bleu, and he used to make $11 an hour at his old job. He also has two sisters and a brother. Also three uncles and four aunts on his mother's side, it was a very large family. His father's name was also Dwight, but he more often went by Paul, which was his middle name. When Dwight was seven years old, his family got a dog. It was a german shepherd/border collie mix. Adorable. Its name was Jack. Dwight was sensitive to citrus, too, or really anything with citric acid. It wasn't really an allergy, exactly, but just some weird reaction that would cause a rash if it touched his lips. He really loved the Lion King movie as a small child, he'd watch it a couple times a day. His friends, Johnny and Paul (like his dad's middle name! He always found that so weird) really liked Playstation, but Dwight was more of a Sega kid. One time, Dwight tried to cut open an orange so he could eat it (this was before finding out about the citrus sensitivity), and he accidentally cut his finger. But he just put a band-aid on the cut and ate the orange anyway. What a trooper. Dwight likes to drink soda and then crush the cans with his foot. One time, the aluminum poked through the drinking hole and embedded itself into his shoe. He laughed and stomped around with it. It took eight steps before it fell off. Then he threw it away. But he was a good boy, so he put it into the recyclables bin. Not like his brother, Hank. Hank would throw his soda cans in with the food. Bad Hank. Dwight had a tendency to chew his fingernails (wait, crap, that's actually something that can be and is easily represented in-game) Dwight always wiped down instead of up when on the toilet. He'd sit down to pee, too. Silly Dwight, boys don't have to do that. When he first drove a car, it was a Ford. Fancy, Dwight, fancy. He rode a horse once, but he was scared and didn't do it again. He doesn't trust playground swings, because the chain snapped once while he was swinging and he fractured his arm. It wasn't a full-blown break, but it still hurt. Also, he used to forget deodorant a lot. Most people didn't like that, but since the Entity doesn't give the Survivors deodorant, no one minds as much now, so he sees that as a silver lining.
Now, let's add all that to his backstory. We need representation, you see.
@Wahara said:
I do welcome you to point out where I have dismissed anyone's point without an honest attempt of rebuttal. I will happily correct the oversight. Conversely, if you would like me to quote the interactions where I feel justified in believing others are not properly engaging with my own, I would be happy to do so.You've subjectively decided that people aren't addressing your points, when I know for a fact that I have been at every step. At one point in doing that, you said I was moving the goalposts. But, yes, give me your side and explain where you think you're not being listened to.
-
@Wahara said:
Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.And those trivialities are entirely irrelevant. Their melanin quantities are different, yaaaaay. That's as far as it needs to go. Only people obsessed with race (not a good thing) would want it to be taken farther than that.
@Wahara said:
I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend." Anyone that could read something as innocuous as that in a survivors biography and think that sexuality is being shoved in their face is simply not thinking very hard.If it's that minor, sure, no problem. They haven't made any reference to non-parental relationships in any of the other Survivors' stories, but since it seems some gay people just do not have enough imagination to fill in the gaps on their favorite characters' pasts, their mental handicaps could be accommodated via the inclusion of a line or two like that.
@Wahara said:
Oh, you know that's an improper characterization. You yourself were argued down from "Quit being so God damned shallow" to "Okay, actually yeah it is kind of nice if it's done right"That's how debates are typically supposed to go, reaching an understanding and, if viable and/or necessary, a compromise. Not the "I MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS" like many people seem to be taught.
I never said it was kind of nice, by the way. I still think that those who need it to happen have wildly unhealthy mindsets.
@Wahara said:
Er, to your question, I'm not sure exactly how to respond but I cannot tell whether you're phrasing your question rhetorically or whether they're being asked in good faith. Some clarification?I was asking in good faith and offering one way I could see it being done without being obnoxious, but that good faith is waning as you continue to state that any arguments opposed to yours are simply unworthy of consideration.
-
@Wahara said:
I'm gay. The whole numbers game isn't really a valid basis for any argument anyways. It is interesting to note that several people who are LGBT aren't really as against the idea as they appear to be, once you pick away through the nonsense like "it's not needed" and such, they're concern ultimately boils down to a deep cynicism."Once you pick away the nonsense like "viewpoints opposed to my own". PSSSH. Stoopid disagree-y people."
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
if your LGBTQ+ and dont like labels then your most afraid to say it unlike me who make my label of "Gay" a strength not a weakness.This isn't even about the suggestion anymore, this is for you: you NEED to stop obsessing. Your entire personal identity seems to be wrapped up in your sexuality. It is not healthy, at all. This label isn't your strength or weakness, it's your everything.
@Wahara said:
"when you almost militantly march forward forcing your ideas on everyone and injecting them into every single medium you can get your hands on my tolerance for the whole group drops."Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?
All of you are being obtuse cowards about this very basic and [BAD WORD] simple question. Why is the representation of race and sex permissible but the representation of sexuality is not? If you cannot answer, you must accept the possibility of having an irrational double standard and take some time for a bit of self examination. Seriously.
I'll be waiting while you ignore me to regurgitate your tired points at Legend over and over again.
Can you represent their sexuality visually? Race is blatantly obvious at a glance. Sexuality is something you have to go out of your way to convey. Perhaps a shirt or hat or something with a rainbow or gender symbols?
-
IS that the point? Have the developers said that somewhere? Or is that just what people have decided to tell themselves in order to justify No Mither's awful effects?
-
@Mc_Harty said:
We don't even know if the majority of the survivors are straight. Because in the end it doesn't matter, they're still ######### by a benevolent god that tortures them for food.I think you mean malevolent. The Entity sure as heck ain't kindly and well-meaning. :P
-
Sorry for mentioning concerns as they arise. I should know better.
-
@Skerpinator said:
I dont get it why they wanna trade excitement for cashProbably because they'd like to eat.
-
@Wahara said:
So really, the question is, why not include LGBTQ characters? Because it isn't "necessary"? Lots of things aren't necessary. What a stupid argument. Playing dead by daylight isn't necessary. My consumption of a whole pot of coffee every morning isn't necessary. Me posting on this forum isn't necessary. We do things or want things not always out of necessity, but emotional appreciation.
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
well what do you think people do when they say im wrong and they shouldnt add a LGBTQ+ survivor with no facts or anything to back it and thats fine but when you constantly reply to someone about it then thats what i mean because there are a few examples of this in the threadYou haven't brought up any facts to back it up, either. Because this is an entirely subjective discussion.
@Wahara said:
To the other point that was raised, that sexuality "isn't something that people should care about", or something that should even come up, visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness, and the more people come into contact with diverse characters in the media they consume, the more used to it them they become. For example, TV shows like Will & Grace were massive steps forward in changing public opinion of gay people.If it's done right. If it's shoved in your face, it's just obnoxious and drives people away from wanting to associate. Your killer suggestion a few posts ago isn't too bad in that regard, actually, and Killers tend to have a lot more backstory to them than Survivors, so it doesn't eat up space. Still a tad arbitrary, but if the psycho parents must have a motivation, any other choice would be similarly trivial.
Although, I do wanna mention that your same point of normalization means that particular story contributes to the normalization of demonizing religion, something media's already been doing for some time. :P Normalization can be used for good or ill.
-
@PhantomMask20763 said:
FrEdDy FaZbEaR fOr NeXT LicENceD KiLlEr pLsYou joke, but I actually thought it'd be pretty awesome to get all four, and the Killer player's ability is to shut one down and transfer consciousness to another.
That or the same ability in a scarecrow character.
-
@CoolAKn said:
@DocOctober If they do decide to add a character of a varying sexuality, I would much rather them be a fitting addition, rather than a token addition. So, if you haven't already, you can add me to the people that are against adding one for the sake of having one.I take my example from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer to compare the introduction of 2 characters, both female lovers of Willow, one of Buffy's friends. The first was Tara. She was casually introduced into the show, and she slowly became a big part of it. She fit well with the dynamics of the show (sadly, she was killed off). Compared to the second, Kennedy. She just seemed like the show "had" to replace Tara quickly, and her introduction felt forced. Quite frankly, she was rather annoying, and somewhat brought the quality of the show down when she became part of it. The ending was enjoyable, but I think it would have been better without her.
I would much rather have DBD have a Tara-like introduction as opposed to a Kennedy-like introduction.
I doubt my first post really conveyed my feelings regarding the inclusion of gay characters in general, but this pretty aptly describes it. My fear with any gay character is that it'll just be a token addition; a checklist, as I'd sorta described it. Such characters are always shallow and awful. When such things are done well, they're extremely minor aspects of the character, not the defining trait. Minor enough that, if you only have four or five paragraphs to describe the character, their sexuality doesn't come up. Just like real people; those whose identities are defined by their relationships just aren't that interesting of people, and often pretty insufferable to be around.
-
@Wahara said:
On a somewhat related note, the unironic usage of the term "snowflake" automatically makes you look like a tool. It's a snarl word used by jerks to discredit/dismiss the sensitivities of people that are different from them.I take offense to using tool as a derogatory term, thank you. My people should not have to endure this abuse.
-
I always let the Survivors go when I play Killer, and... I'm actually not sure it'd be such a great idea.
I'd love to be able to communicate my intentions a little more easily to the Survivors, but having played Team Fortress 2, I know that every little bit of silliness players can convey makes them that much more likely to mess with the match by going all-out Friendly mode. When I play Survivor, I certainly appreciate a Killer that takes it a little easy and doesn't go for full kills, but even the extra Bloodpoints don't make me happy to find a Killer that flails around at pallets telling you to stun them. That just takes all the fun out of the game and turns it into a grindy chore, even if the grind is technically faster than playing normally.
I don't object altogether to the addition of Killer gestures, but I figured I'd play devil's advocate and throw out one potential problem with such an addition.
-
Speaking as a gay guy...
You're being goddamn shallow. Quit begging for "representation" in the form of such a completely trivial character trait. Take pride in your personality, not your superfluous, immutable characteristics.
I'd much rather read about a character's chosen profession and last moments than who they prefer to bone. And most other people who have been raised to see themselves as a person rather than a checklist feel the same way.
-
I'm plenty competent without the add-ons or game-affecting offerings, myself; it's the pursuit of Bloodpoints that seems to jinx the match.
-
Bringing anything on Doctor is especially useless, it seems. Soon as the first person screams, the player icons are cords.
-
I was actually thinking of something similar a while back, being able to transfer between different "killers" on the map like the safe-head guy from Evil Within. Scarecrows would make a fantastic vehicle for such a power, and using crows in its perks is another really nice idea. I greatly approve!
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Shallow Trenches- This is pretty interesting. On the one hand it is more realistic. Why can't survivors low crawl? On the other hand I don't think it is an accident that survivors can't just low crawl to begin with. I think if you had 4 immersed survivors low crawling around the map, it would just be torture. So while it does make sense, I think for the health of the game this is a bad idea.Perhaps, but I think the tradeoffs make up for it. Your crouch is entirely replaced with the crawl; you no longer have the option of crouching, which is faster and actually gives you a slimmer profile compared to the reduced vertical profile of crawling. Crawling would help in expansive patches of tall grass or with low walls, but would actually be worse for hiding in corners or behind trees, generators, and other narrow objects. Combined with the slower movement, it becomes more of a tool for static hiding spots than for evasion.
@WeraRaptor said:
The Take One For The Team perk is excellent, but the killer stun is way too short; the killer would practically be able to hit the survivor straight away. Change stun time to 3/3/4 seconds.@Dreamnomad said:
Take One For the Team, stun duration seems way too short and exposed feels more like the perk should be called "suicide mission". Perhaps a different draw back that isn't so extreme? Like hindered for 5 seconds or something.True, I suppose the Stun is a tad small. My thought was that its primary purpose would be for saving allies that are being carried, while being a highly risky move for yourself. It also needs to entice the Killer to go after you instead of just chasing the saved ally again. As such, I don't think 5 seconds of Hindered would be all that suitable; I went with the 30-second Exposed so that the Killer has a significant opportunity to make the trade between the Survivor they were originally carrying, and you.
Another usage that's since crossed my mind is stunning the Killer just long enough to grab the Hatch during one of those half-hour-long standoffs that shouldn't be a part of the game. X)@WeraRaptor said:
Secondly, the Not On My Watch perk is also a super cool idea, but the movement speed should be slower and with the perk you should not be able to crouch, and carry the survivor only for 20/25/30 seconds before you drop them and they let out a scream (not a shock therapy scream that shows an aura, but like a loud grunt).@Dreamnomad said:
Not on my Watch- I actually like this concept, but it definitely needs to last longer than 10 seconds! I think the cool down could be shorter too.My intention was to allow for a quick repositioning if the Killer gets distracted by someone else before hooking a Survivor, or a save when your ally goes down inches from the exit gate. For those purposes, I don't think it'd need to be too long a carry, though I suppose it may be too short to really work for the first purpose. You may not be able to get far enough away for the Killer to lose track of their downed victim.
-
._. Thanks for ensuring that no one will see this post with your 16 threads, @Peasant
-
Survivors don't have personalized add-ons. That may be one reason.