There are good reasons as to why people find some killers boring to play against.
Comments
-
Clown is probably my 2nd favorite killer to play at red ranks and his power is way underrated. Using his gas to slow survivors down and prevent loops is how you make him so strong. Most mindlessly waste his gas. I don't want him buffed because he will be boring to play. I use to play old Freddy a lot but now I wouldn't touch him because he's a free ez win. Shutting your brain off and winning is not really winning anything. Maps like Ormond are fair because it means the killer can't be breathing down someone's neck almost immediately after hooking someone and it's a free win for killer with tiny maps. When I say Huntress has no counterplay, a good one doesn't. They can bait the pallets, they can abuse the hitboxes, they throw right through the tiny crevaces at loops and so you have no counterplay, absolutely none. That's why a really good huntress drops all four survivors by slugging like an old nurse with 5 blinks. A huntress with 5 hatchets is just as bad. You don't need 5 hatchets to down someone, which was the argument that nurse didn't need 5 blinks to down someone. Huntress needs no more than 2 or 3. Have you noticed how fast she can throw 2 hatchets? With how sparse maps are now, she can actually hit you twice before you can get to a safe location. This is why I say she has no counterplay. She's not the #1 picked killer for no reason.
0 -
The reason clown is so weak is that survivors literally make sure that you can't loop them. Very simple, they camp a pallet either get or stun or don't and then your forced to break it. If the pallet is short enough then maybe you don't kick it, and you may get a hit. That is why clown is weak. At his absolute best, he is doing what most klillers do with their power effortlessly. Billy is an example. catch them in a bad spot and he will immediately down them. Clown will just hit them and the survivors will still get to another loop, and repeat the process all over again. You say that he prevents loops, yes this is true, because survivors make sure you don't loop them. You are seriously underestimating how far a survivor can go by dropping a pallet waiting for clown to kick it, and then making crazy amounts of distance. If you have fun playing him so be it, but he is not a strong killer at all. Also the argument about nurse and huntress doesn't make sense. The fact that old nurse had five blinks has nothing to do as to why huntress has five hatches. They are 2 very very different things. Blinks are infinite, hatchets are not. You WILL have to go out of your way to more hatchets, and this is not the case for blinks. Can you imagine how much worse huntress would be if you had to reload every time your done a chase? Also huntress only having 2 or 3 hatchets would mean that she would be the hardest killer to play as with no doubt, and would have less than a payoff of mastery than nurse, due to the fact of the game hindering the players ability to excel. The player will literally have absolutely no way of downing multiple survivors at a time. If that is a problem then Plague, Oni, Nurse, Myers, Blight, and Leatherface due to your logic of a killer being able to down multiple survivors at a time is an OP trait of a killer. Also I'm not even going to argue with you on Ormond, because if you play Clown at red ranks and play Ormond? You will press space bar over 20 times in that match and the gens will get done efficiently. Clown on Ormond is literally hopeless if the survivors somewhat want to win. The survivors don't even have to be good. They just need to want to win and they will on that map. Also give me proof that she is the #1 killer. She has the biggest skill ceiling of all killers so it's not a surprise that a lot of people are interested in mastering her. For some reason you also make it out that a good huntress will not miss. The best huntress players out there still miss shots. None of them are perfect. There will never be a huntress that hits 100% of their shots because that is nearly impossible to do and would encourage you to not go for cross-maps or anything that makes her rewarding outside of chase. Also if huntress had 2 hatchets and you missed one throw, then the best case scenario is that you will be playing as a m1 killer that goes at 4.4m/s and can maybe get an injured state on someone if you're really good. She would literally be unplayable. You're also making it sound like debris on maps don't exist. The most barren maps usually have debris to counter that exact thing from happening. Wretched shop, Yamaoka, and Haddonfield. If the huntress is far away, unless you do not know she is aiming at you, you'll probably not get hit unless she is a god.
0 -
The game doesn't have to be aiming at scaring people. I mentioned already that I don't get your point differing between horror and horror themed. This is pretty definitely a horror game. The main purpose of a game is of course entertainment in the first place, not to disturb you. But it is a horror game.
The DS change as "reason" for the game to be scary or not is kinda BS. This is a change for game health, not for "scare people more or less". Is Selfcare scary? Or Any Means Necessary? This has nothing to do with the game genre. Also the initial version of DS has nothing to do with being scary.
And I don't get where I ever said that people leave the game because they grow. You conclude stuff here from nothing.
And the game doesn't capitalize on chases being scary? Like what? I cannot even argue on that because it is just so wrong by default! And also, the game does not have to be horror like Phasmophobia to be horror. I don't get how you put your definitions. This game is a horror game. Period. This is pretty straight forward. What else should it be? Jump and Run?
0 -
??? There is a big difference between something that is horror and horror-themed. The main one is that one is supposed to scare you. The other is something where its first intention is not to incite horror but for something else. Rather it being entertainment, aesthetic or anything else. A good example of this is Overwatch's Jukenstein were it isn't supposed to scare you, but it's a horror themed. I really don't know how much more simpleI can get than this. And also, if it is not supposed to scare you, then how in the living ######### it is a horror game?? The point of horror games are to get you scared, and if this game doesn't do that then it is not a horror game! Sure it may be marketed that way, but that is not how the game functions. The DS change was an example as to when the devs realized that this game isn't a horror game, but an asymmetrical horror themed multiplayer game, where the main goal it to provide a game where both teams have an equal opportunity to win and outplay each other via skill and knowledge of game mechanics. It is not scary, and if you say it is not, then by definition it is not a horror game! Also when you say that "And the game doesn't capitalize on chases being scary? Like what? I cannot even argue on that because it is just so wrong by default!" Either if you meant that the chases are scary (which they aren't), or if you think that the game shouldn't be scary based upon chases (which if that is the case, then then what the actual ######### would the game have to do in order to scare you aside from killer interaction? The whole point to survivor is to interact with the killer and escape them), it doesn't change much because the chases aren't ######### scary! They do not incite fear! This game by the definition of the word horror (which is to strike fear shock or disgust), is not a horror game. Call it a Cat & Mouse game, or whatever but it is definitely not a horror game. Also the point I brought up with DS was not that the perk itself was scary, I never ever mentioned that and if I did then that is my bad. What I meant is that is that the devs recognize that the game is not meant to incite fear, shock or disgust (which by definition what a horror means), but rather an asymmetrical horror themed game where both sides deserve an equal chance of winning. If dbd was truly a horror game, no ######### would've been given about the old DS. No one would've cared as the objective that the devs focus on bringing onto their game are survivors trying to beat the killer, not be scared of them. I pointed out the fact that people grow in case you made the argument that new players should be scared. You did not and I am sorry if that caused confusion.
0 -
How do you delete other people's posts?
0 -
You're repeating Scott.
0 -
I'm pretty sure the devs didn't suddenly realize " oh, we don't have a horror game here" and even more unlikely they said "THAT'S the reason why we need to change DS". This conclusion doesn't make sense. They were trying to balance it from the beginning.
And I tried to find anything about what you said. And came to the conclusion that this is your own personal definition, getting back to subjectivity. Or give me some good sources that explain the difference between horror and "horror themed". I didn't find some. Wikipedia quoted: "...survival horror games. These games tend to focus on the survival of the player-character in a horror setting with limited resources" which pretty much fits to DBD.
- "chases are scary (which they aren't)"
- your opinion
- "aside from killer interaction"
- what do you think why people play stealthy? either because they are simply too bad at looping, or because they are scared of the killer.
- the game giving equal chances has nothing to do with being not horror. With your words, the game needs to expect all 4 survivors to die in order to be a horror game or how should I read this?
Again, I know enough people that are getting super scared by the game when they face the killer, and not only stealth killers, and also after over 400 hours. I always get back to my main point: your opinion
EDIT: Just another little clue, not sure if you want to put your opinion above this "fact" or want to request a category change on steam because they seem to be clueless
1 - "chases are scary (which they aren't)"
-
Alright... I just saw that you changed your title and the new title actually has nothing to do with what you initially posted...
I commented here because your first title contained something like "people are wrong when they disagree with me about boring killers and the game being no horror"
All my comments base on that title.
"God I [BAD WORD] hate it when people cannot understand what a boring killer is" - there is no definition of a boring killer, this is a purely personal thing
Also "is not meant to be scary" is more a thing the devs can state, and they clearly stated it differently. When there are people that don't get scared by the game, they simply didn't reach them.
Back to your main "idea" of the post: I wouldn't start off with "God I [BAD WORD] hate it when people cannot understand what a boring killer is" if your aim is to explain it to those people. You basically say "if you don't get it by default, I hate you" which doesn't make sense when you try to explain it
1 -
You seem to be stuck on this idea that there is only one way to counter clown. Trust me only babies run to pallets and just drop them. That is not the play. Maybe that's why you don't like clown, because you only try the rank 20 strats. Tbh YOU sound boring to me. You never try new things just the same strategy every single time.
1 -
That's where I'll agree to disagree, but thanks for being civil about it! Your reply was a nice read.
0
