copperysinger5
copperysinger5
About
- Username
- copperysinger5
- Joined
- Visits
- 105
- Last Active
Comments
-
In any multiplayer game It is unfair to give losing players/survivors who quit out of the match a ‘draw’ or ‘win’ then force winning killers into finishing the match with bots in order to obtain a win for the match. The point when all survivors conceded is where the killer must be rewarded the win and survivors who abandon must be given a loss with no rewards; there should be no ‘draw’ or ‘win’ for players who conceded; they accepted losing the match when they abandoned the game.
-
After the losing team quits the entire match you say the killer…
“ need to stay in the game and spend the time to earn more.”
this is absolutely the most inconsiderate oblivious statement. Survivors got rewarded and didn’t have to stay, but the ’winning’ killer should stay with AI BOTS? You should be ashamed of yourself for trolling this much. -
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3909862#Comment_3909862
The concept of conceding at a game is broadly understood across many games and has been for decades, if not centuries. The type of game doesn't matter in any way. It could be a horror game, an asymmetric game, a basketball game, a card game, a drinking game, or even a guessing game. Conceding is not 'being a sore loser', it is the person losing acknowledging that their opponent has won and the winner not forcing the opponent to continue participating in what will be in some instances simply a matter of humiliation.
Likewise, accepting a concession is a matter of being a good sport. Once the match is clearly done in any game where an opponent has conceded, it is disrespectful to force the opponent to keep participating except during games played for the entertainment of third parties (i.e. professional gaming). We are not professionals at this game, we owe each other the respect of not forcing each other to participate in a loss for longer than is needed. That's why people don't like slugging or having to force survivors out at gates; those situations force the losing player(s) to be in a match they clearly can no longer win, when there is no purpose to remain in the game.
There's no reason to take issue with the fact that people have conceded a game to you. It is not cowardly, it's not being a 'sore loser', it's just someone acknowledging that you have won the game (or in some cases that it's a stalemate) and them wanting to acknowledge that the game is done.
‘You concede, I win game over’ but that is not how it plays out. DBD perception of conceding the game is flawed. If you concede then your opponent must take all the winnings and you get none. DBD rewards the conceding survivors and then punishes the winning killer by forcing to continue to play with AI BOT in order to finish the match; while the survivor could already be in queue for the next match.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3909770#Comment_3909770
The new system allowing people to abandon a match is only available in scenarios where those players tend to be heavily disadvantaged or where the game is in what most players consider a somewhat annoying state. When survivors are able to surrender, they're either all slugged or on hook, or all the teammates are bots. Those all tend to be massively unfavorable for the survivors and the case of everyone being slugged was commonly abused by some players in the past to agitate survivor players, forcing them to waste time bleeding out.
There can certainly be a thrill in a good match with human opponents. But there are even certain competitive sports that have so called 'mercy rules' which allow a team that's losing badly enough to simply concede the match. Outside of gaming leagues, my experience is that a lot of games have at least an informal way for a team or side to give up. There's no thrill in defeating an opponent who can't possibly win though. That would be like an adult getting excited about winning at basketball against a small child.
When survivors ate able to give up, the killer is also still able to finish putting the bots on hooks, or to mori them, allowing the killer to obtain their bp for the match.
with this "abandon game" update; a disadvantaged survivor is given opportunity as s sore loser to mercy quit. why a disadvantaged killer not allowed the same privilege?
It is not considered a disadvantage when the killer outsmarted the entire team of survivors in a fair game. No matter how 'unfun' it was for the losing survivors the victorious killer should be rewarded; yes? but instead the game forces the killer to be stuck with AI Bots in a multiplayer game. Sour sore loser opponents ejecting before the game is finished is cowardly; and why would you expect 'mercy' if you decided to play a horror game?!. I would understand 'mercy' if the game was rated for kids under 12 years of age but it's not.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3909691#Comment_3909691
But the killer has clearly won against human opponents in a case where the survivors have chosen to give up. There should be no thrill in besting opponents who are in a very disadvantaged position. Clasically, people woud say there's no sport in it. So once survivors are in a position where they can use the new abandon match feature, there's really no sport in finishing it, no thrill left to be had.
I play killer a lot, and I very often give hatch for the last survivor because they generally can't possibly win with just one left. Where's the fun in it for me to just drive up my score against a helpless opponent? If the last survivor has a chance to open the gate, I usually go for the down and then consider letting them wiggle out. Sometimes, I still do the 4k, but I refuse to slug for 4k, and I never mori since I see both those things as bm. The update just alleviates what I view as some of the most problematic things in the game, not as something that's unfair in any way.
Also, please note that I did not even kind of try to justify teabagging or any kind of bm. BM has no place in games or in most areas of life. My opinion is that attempts to remove bm from the game are good.
how are survivors disadvantaged? and why shouldn't there be a thrill in winning against human opponents? If you want to surrender then the game should end giving the killer maximum rewards; but it punishes the killer with AI bots.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3909067#Comment_3909067
Why is it a problem if the killer is left with bots? I play killer all the time and that doesn't bother me in any way. If I'm winning at a game, my opponents are free to give up. That's part of playing games. The only thing that we have to be careful about is that the game remains enjoyable for the participants. One player giving up shouldn't make it impossible for another player to win, which is the case with survivors. I think it would be fine if the killer were able to dc during egc and be replaced by a killer bot.
Also, most survivors who stay at the gate aren't trying to bm the killer. I stay to assess whether I need to run back in for a save. And when the survivors manage to open a gate, I find it's very rare that they teabag. If I chase someone out of the gate, it's a very small minority of the time that they attempt to taunt me as they leave.
A killer you are not winning the game against human opponents which takes the competitive spirit out of the game. not many will be thrilled in beating AI Bot opponents in multiplayer games. BTW; I think you know this update is unfair. it is too obvious; knowing that survivors can abandon the game with no penalty from annoying killers but killers cant do the same. Yet you try to justify every survivor's motive for their toxic teabagging.
-
the devs made it possible for survivors to quit and escape losing with no penalty; while not giving the killers that same option. Who wants to play with quitters? No one… the abandon game system is so very flawed
-
speaking of QOL improvements, why does the killer have to wait and watch survivors teabag and stall at opens exit gates? Behavior devs allow survivors to forfeit from being shamed and humiliated when losing but they don’t allow killers to do the same.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3908932#Comment_3908932
But in a situation where the survivors dc, they will often have already lost the match. They're essentially conceding, which is a perfectly acceptable way to exit a large number of games. They're acknowledging that they can't escape. How does a player not gain the satisfaction of winning if their opponents concede the match?
When exit gates unlock, losing killers should be allowed to abandon: Winning survivors teabag and linger at exit gate to shame the killer with no option for killer to leave without penalty. but you think it should be be okay for survivors to leave the winning killer with bots?? The level of unfairness is blatantly clear
-
-Extreme unfairness alert- Killers no longer get satisfaction of winning against human players; they can evade mori and you are left with bots.
There is no fun in winning a multiplayer game against bots. Once killer has upper hand and its time to put the finishing moves on the survivors they quit with no penalty. but yet if they have the upper hand they can stall at the gates and tea-bag; forcing the killer into humiliation.
like playing poker and your opponent (survivor) is allowed to go all the way to the river to find they don't have a winning chance and fold but keep all their chips but you cant; you are only allowed to fold if they fold.
-
@NightmareKT said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3114632#Comment_3114632
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3114866#Comment_3114866
I feel like he is pretending to be a killer main as well... clearly does not know what he is talking about reason being he aint in high mmr
Im betting that not many killers are in high mmr anymore. why? because survivors complained so much to have us nerfed. if you want to measure mmr rank; show us how many killers are currently at high mmr. show us exactly how many killers are competing at top tier using Clown?
-
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3114205#Comment_3114205
A speed boost / speed nerf? You can’t be serious. 😂 the game is balanced fine. If you don’t think so, you probably just suck. I play killer, and so just fine. I get lots of 3/4 k’s. I also lose some matches to some decent survivors. I play solo q, and I escape probably 70% of my matches, and I die to some good killers. The game is fine.
Im going to be real honest with you. I have been playing killer long enough to spot that you are a 100% survivor pretending to know about killer. Your comment "the game is fine" tells me that you dont know anything about killer.
-
@CypherDBD said:
I think the real problem of the game is the toxic communauty...
I play survivor and killer (rank 1) and i see a lot unfair and troll players.
I love the game, but i always need a break time (weeks/month) for this game because of that!
Sometime i see very bad killer win, just because he camp/tunnel and kill 1 survivor in 3 minutes, free win for killer...
Or good killer lose, because 1/2 survivors just troll the killer (bodyblock, clic clic with flashlight, t-bag...) and the other survivors 2/3 gen rush.
I'ts just my opinion, but i think all of this broke the MMR system and make unbalanced game.
I see this is true too; the community can ruin the experience. In this thread there are people shouting "you suck" "git gud" although Im considered a higher level killer; making comments like this come from a ignorant mindset that implies that a person should play the game a certain way. I dont always want to run around sweaty with nurse and spirit all the time.
Have you ever wonder why a game like left 4 dead 1 and 2 became so popular and liked?
there is fun to be had for everyone and the game was geared around making it fun for everyone; and not just made for whoever spoke the loudest in the community.
There was a time when I was unstopable with Clown and on average 3 to 4k 50 games straight before seeing 1 to 2k. Survivors began to cry and complain; well eventually behavior decides to slow down the clown and give him a speed bottle and slow him down some more and shorten his lunge attack and make his field of view even more narrower. now my Average is 2k with clown. I bet the same survivors that were crying and complaining before are now screaming "Git Gud" and "You suck"; such a toxic community.
I guarantee you that they are undercover survivor mains pretending to know about killer. because every killer main at high level knows the current difficuly faced when playing your favorite killer as opossed to playing the op killer. As I play Clown I realize he simply cant compete with a sweaty survivor crew and I play Myers as well I used to play Freddie too but they nerfed him so bad it aint even funny. But on the otherhand; Im way overpowered with these same killers when playing against average survivors; while im struggling to get 1K with the sweaty crew im almost 100% 4k with average crews and I feel the emphathy for these players I intentionally let them go through the gate (sometimes). these players need a speed boost. As the sweaty crew falsly thinks they are good; ive watched them make so many mistakes but were given too many second chances while my killer is being slowed down with shortened attack hits and narrowed field of vision.
-
@CyberRoninX said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/339265/this-game-is-really-unfair-and-unbalanced
Unfortunately after the update this game is miserable for casual players. Before the update the game was fairly balaced for casual players. It seems that BHVR expects you to have 6000+ hours or be in SWF to enjoy playing the game anymore. Soloq is dead.
Maybe if they gave casual ranked players a speed boost and sweaty ranked players a speed nerf. I think this might make things better for everyone overall.
-
@roundpitt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2770296#Comment_2770296
I watch my wife when she plays killer and I give her pointers. The first time she got a kill (and she got two of them) was when I told her to camp at the end with NOED. She was bullied hard all game but then face camped at the end and secured two kills. Both of which were her first kills.
She felt bad about it because she doesn't like being camped when she is survivor. But that's literally the only way. She had only played three games and the "mAtChMaKiNg" was giving her a bunch of tier 1 iridescent SWF groups.
Cool game.
You mentioned "my argument" my post is no argument, and as the previous poster stated, devs don't consider comms as cheating. You cannot make a rule to limit comms to survivor to survivor only without being unfair bias and unbalanced against the killer. In other words, you proudly say survivor can use walkie talkies to communicate actions or locations!? While being knocked down hooked or spying on the killer!? It would be gaslighting to say this is fair. In that case, the counter to that unfair madness is to have a survivor tune to a killer's channel on the walkie talkie. How do like that?
-
@ThatOneDemoPlayer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771448#Comment_2771448
The devs have stated multiple times that playing with friends isn't cheating
Hmmm... Communicating with friends isn't cheating you say? Two killer friends, one playing as survivor and a team player, but.... Communicates the location of other survivors to the killer. Any fellow killer mains out there wanna be friends? Holla!
-
@ThanksForDaily said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2604170#Comment_2604170
And they're always killer mains. Probably they said that for them to buff killers or nerf survivor perks.
They're not quitting. Devs knows that.
I quit this game and havent came back. serioulsy it was fun playing as killer until they nerfed my favorite killer to the point of not really being competative; it brought frustration and boredom. and if the devs knows as much as you say then they know that I have quit this game and haven't came back. I hope they nerf the survivors to the point where they cant escape from an inexperienced killer, we will see how much fun they will be having then. It will prove all similarities among all player, if survivors feel the game is going unfairly they will complain on these forums just as the killers do. look back a couple years aga when killers were over balanced, survivors were here in the forums sreaming and begging for the devs to nerf the killers.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2613633#Comment_2613633
I might win a game in that case 😂😂
You would have won anyways because the game gives you too many second chances.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2613618#Comment_2613618
See you in the fog 😉
No you won't see me. You'll be in the fog by yourself.
-
@ThanksForDaily said:
I don't take the "quitting dbd" threads seriously.
9/10 quitters are back within a day.
Im that 10th dbd killer quitter that hasn't been back. Survivors get a million second chances, and that is too frustrating to play against in high levels.
-
@Babawizwiz said:
Forum is for 18 yo and above
The buffs given to survivors are made to be played by an infantile
-
You wish for killers to behave more nicely? BHVR has nerfed all the nice cool winning strategies for the killers and gave them no option but to play in a style that you might consider as tryhard or toxic. As a survivor it is your duty to complain that your opponents nerfs have been taken too far to the point it's not highly competative and only results in toxicity. But you won't because most survivors like that are too cheezy, if killers were only given water guns and balloons as weapons, those survivors will still think it's fair. The developers nerfed killers too much. It only benefit new survivors that don't have skills to escape against a skilled killer. Now high level survivors are relaxing because killers are too weak.
-
I forgot to add. An example of those nerfs to increase the stupidity in killers would be... In the past, playing as killer clown I was very effective using the single tonic bottles to slow down survivors. Well BHVR decided 'hey look! The killer clown is being too effective with those bottles, let's patch the game to reduce the effectiveness of the tonic, slow the clown down and add an antidote speed up bottle using the same button so he can accidentally hit the survivors with it 'hehe' and what's actually a nerf, we will pretend it's a buff for the clown'...
-
I believe tunneling is to avoid annoying lopping and pallet slams that suck you in, and high beam flashlights in the eyeballs and, disappearing survivors. Through patches, developers program killers to be stationary half blind and stupid; it wasn't always this way. When picking up a survivor and to not be able to turn away from flashlights is unreasonable. They make the killers to be stupid narrow sighted and slow obey and be forced to wear certain perks. In this case, might as well play like something stupid but if they made killers more intelligent maybe you will see less tunneling. There is only so much playing as killer can do to win when BHVR updates constantly to nerf and cut off his smart winning strategies. The following is bhvr formula to dbd. Killer=played as a big stupid oppressed idiot... Survivors=let's teabag him as we slide through the exit gate... To answer the op of this thread, the killer player wants the ability to have an intelligent winning strategy but soon as we find one BHVR nerfs it with a quick patch. This is an annoying practice from developer to pretend to balance the game who are actually cutting off winning strategies for killers. This leads to some killer players resulting in what survivors see as toxic behavior. The killer has no beef with that survivor, so don't take it personal.
-
@tennmio said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2589202#Comment_2589202
I am not "insulting every killer that does not do what I want" as selfish or tryhard. I label behaving in certain ways as people that show selfish or tryhard behaviour. If you show tryhard and selfish behaviour, you behaved tryhard and selfish- that just how it is.
"When it is actually you that is being selfish and toxic" -> Am I? Why do you believe that? What kind of thing I said got you that impression?
I am not sure where that "toxic" comes from, care to explain?
"Are you being nice, empathic and good when you are complaining" -> Does that mean that you believe that someone nice, empathic and good isn't allowed to point out wrong behaviour and complain about it, because that makes them not nice, empathic or good?
"and projecting all the responsibitly of your fun to the killer?" -> How am I doing that? The killer player is responsible for his/her actions just as much as the survivor player is for his/her actions. Not once have I said that only the killer is responsibile. Nor am I projecting responsibility to anyone. I am reminding everyone that we indeed are responsible for our actions and that it is our responsibility to act on the neccesities of each situation and that we have to take into account other peoples needs at least a bit IF we see ourselves as good, nice or decent. On cannot claim trying to be a good person if they're just behaving in a selfish manner, ignoring other peoples needs etc.
Overall this whole post wasn't even about me or my fun. It was about the behaviour that I whitnessed in a game (that went pretty ok for me, just that I felt pretty bad for the others).
"Have you considered that maybe the killer in question has circumstances where they want to get into the next game quicker?" What -if not something selfish- would that kind of circumstance be? It's not like the killer knew beforehand that someone was going to dc/loose connection. So that person must have assumed that the game would be about 10-20 Minutes.
-> And in that situation. From experience I know that the "need" to get into the next game quick, isn't as important as getting all 3 remaining survivors. Never have I ever experienced a unfair and selfish playing killer, that claimed that he only played that way because he wanted to get out of the game and onto the next one as quick as possible, not slug for the remaining survivor, they all did that. None of the killer players contacted (that claimed they played like this to get it over with asap) was able to explain as to WHY they slugged the prelast for nearly the whole 4 minutes bleedout in order to find the last survivor.
It's not like the killer is gonna get out of that game faster, if he/she plays like that, in order to get their challenge done. At that point letting survivors gen rush would be faster.
Might be a coincidence. !So if there is someone out here that had a tryharding killer in a 3 vs 1 (from the start) with 5 gens remaining and did experience that the killer if the survivors started to tryhard as well, not slug if needed, please speak up!
I do have experienced killers that obviously just wanted to get to the next game. But they didn't slug nor did they care for the last survivor at all. But the weren't camping and tunneling hardcore nor slugging in the end.
"Where is your empathy....." I've had that happen to me and I know it is very frustrating if you really want to get a challenge (or throphy) done in time and you don't have much time left. But I am not a fan of behaving selfishly. I might not have much time to get it done, but how would they know? I would be selfish to just put my needs over the 3 other people. Apart from that I don't like camp and tunnel and slug as it isn't fair and a good person (that as I said I am trying to be) wouldn't behave that way. When I was in that situation, I just went to do something I had to get done anyway, as soon as I realized that I couldn't finish my challenge that game due to the dc. But not before asking the survivor player that dc'ed (luckly from my platform) why they did it.
Btw I do believe the context matters. But how'd you know if the survivors were doing a challenge too?
Being empathic as survivor is more stressful and requires more cognitive load than as killer. Because as killer I only have to be empathic to one role, the survivors I am chasing. So the best I can do is play fair, give everyone a chance to breathe, do a gen, save and heal and have some fun. But always taking into account how they behave towards me and their fellow survivors throught the game. For example If I realize that 1 survivor always loops nearby gens that are worked on or by hooks, that survivor is acting selfishly and will probably die. If I see a survivor taking a hit for another survivor that they unhooked, that was something a good person would do, so I'll monitor if they do that for wglf stacks or if they are truely trying to do the right thing. I monitor survivors that sandbag others, trying to find out who is the one that started it/ who is the one that doesn't deserve to escape.
As survivor I have to be empathic to three other survivors and a killer. I am constantly balancing the assumed needs of 4 individuals, always taking into account how that have behaved throughout the game and if their behaviour was ok and what kind of action is required to make it fair, respectful and fun for everyone. As survivor I monitor how the other survivors treat everybody else and I assess how much I'll help them escape. If they tbag or try to annoy the killer, I won't help them at all. But I'll try to help the killer instead. If the killer is tunneling I'll try to make sure he/she has a hard time getting the target. If the killer camps I'll happily make the nearst gen right next to the hook. If the survivor camped tbag or annoy the killer I leave them on the hook. If they get unhooked by someone else I won't heal them no matter how long they follow me, I'll just shake my head and point away from me.
Not saying this is a perfect system, but it is the one I've come up with to use the influence I have in order to make the games as fair and respectful as possible for each individual. During the challenges I'll try to assume what challenge everyone has to do at the moment and I'll try to figure out how to make sure everyone gets what they need plus trying to get my own challenge done (but I try to not put getting my own challenge done above the others).
What you don't understand is the killer has to play against 4 selfish tryhards! Because if they all make it to the gates they all start teabagging at the killer, even if you let them win.
-
You are not alone, you love the game and play as killer but the delevopers keeps making it unreasonable to win as killer by slowing us down and shrinking fov, making hit swings shorter, and nerfs. While giving survivors speed boosts, invincibility, invisibility and tools to finish generators quickly, insta heals and ability to communicate killer's location.
-
@tennmio said:
If 1 person dc's right at the beginning and 2 people brought bloodpointofferings for everyone, maybe consider not tunneling, camping and slugging people. With 0 gens done, ruin up, on a map (midvich) that you decided to go to. With you having good perks and add ons, when those survivors don't even bring 1 meta perk.
For those about to complain: No I don't expect someone to farm, I don't want to farm. BUT one can play differently in a 3 vs 1. Be respectful, don't tunnel/camp. Give survivors at least a chance to get some points. Just behave like a feeling, empathic human being, it's all I ask (if that isn't true for you, just play as if you posessed those qualities, like an actor).
Tbh I wish the devs would punish tunneling and camping in 3 vs 1's when bp offerings were brought. Like there is NO acceptable reason to play that disgustingly selfish if you are already having an advantage.
The real tryhards are the survivors that come here to this forum to demand killers to obey like a pet. It's a video game! You play to win, the opponent plays to win. A video game is not the place to seek strangers to give empathy and sorrow for your losses but a psychiatrist office is.