I-frames during unhooking. #########.
I don't get why this change was implemented, 3 times today I have hot a survivor when THEIR FEET WERE ON THE ######### FLOOR, two of those it resulted in them getting out. What good does it do? If you get unhooked in front of a killer, then that's on you, I can follow someone to the unhook, and can't even hit them it seems. Just give everyone borrowed time by default, at least that has a timer you can see.
Comments
-
You actually have to wait till the unhook is finished and pray that they dont have sprint burst ready.
Survivors complain about camping all the time, but apparently its nto enough that they can pull off a 100% save even with a M1 killer sitting in their face, using BT and bodyblocking
1 -
@ToastfaceKilla said:
If you get unhooked in front of a killer, then that's on youMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, that's pushing it.
0 -
The solution to this is extremely simple. While the person rescued is invulnerable, the other should be exposed. That way if you camp or get unhooked in front of you, you are still better off not tunneling.0
-
@Spiritbx said:
The solution to this is extremely simple. While the person rescued is invulnerable, the other should be exposed. That way if you camp or get unhooked in front of you, you are still better off not tunneling.Reverse Make your choice would be pretty neat.
0 -
@Spiritbx said:
The solution to this is extremely simple. While the person rescued is invulnerable, the other should be exposed. That way if you camp or get unhooked in front of you, you are still better off not tunneling.Too bad that hits get redirected to the invulnerable target too.
And tunneling is necessary if you play against competent survivors (unless you want to depip)
1 -
It would only be for a few seconds though. Meant to punish unhooking right in front of the killer without screwing over the hooked person.ToastfaceKilla said:@Spiritbx said:
The solution to this is extremely simple. While the person rescued is invulnerable, the other should be exposed. That way if you camp or get unhooked in front of you, you are still better off not tunneling.Reverse Make your choice would be pretty neat.
0 -
Or just make it that any damage recieved by either of them is redirected to the rescuer during the iframes.DeadByFlashlight said:@Spiritbx said:
The solution to this is extremely simple. While the person rescued is invulnerable, the other should be exposed. That way if you camp or get unhooked in front of you, you are still better off not tunneling.Too bad that hits get redirected to the invulnerable target too.
And tunneling is necessary if you play against competent survivors (unless you want to depip)
That way you dont get wasted hits as killer and the poor hooked person doesnt get farmed.you could tunnel, you would just have to wait out the 1-2 or w/e seconds of iframes.1 -
@Spiritbx said:
DeadByFlashlight said:@Spiritbx said:
The solution to this is extremely simple. While the person rescued is invulnerable, the other should be exposed. That way if you camp or get unhooked in front of you, you are still better off not tunneling.
Too bad that hits get redirected to the invulnerable target too.
And tunneling is necessary if you play against competent survivors (unless you want to depip)
Or just make it that any damage recieved by either of them is redirected to the rescuer during the iframes.
That way you dont get wasted hits as killer and the poor hooked person doesnt get farmed.you could tunnel, you would just have to wait out the 1-2 or w/e seconds of iframes.Anythings better than wasted hits, whiffing hits like that just feels really ######### from a killers players perspective, as a mechanic, it just feels cheap. If someone is sprinting towards the hook just as I am leaving, I should be able to punish that mistake. (Unhook grabs are also inconsistent in general, and not always possible.)
1 -
No point praying, they definitely will have it up since the devs shadow-implemented the complete recovery of exhaustion when hooked.DeadByFlashlight said:You actually have to wait till the unhook is finished and pray that they dont have sprint burst ready.
1 -
It's to help combat camping. Good change.
3 -
It's very unfair to be hit again before you can even move. Wonderful change. Adapt.
2 -
FIFYMight_Oakk said:It's to help reward dangerous unhooks. Good change.
4 -
Its bugged and doesn't really work on the ps4 /shrug0
-
@ToastfaceKilla said:
I don't get why this change was implemented, 3 times today I have hot a survivor when THEIR FEET WERE ON THE [BAD WORD] FLOOR, two of those it resulted in them getting out. What good does it do? If you get unhooked in front of a killer, then that's on you, I can follow someone to the unhook, and can't even hit them it seems. Just give everyone borrowed time by default, at least that has a timer you can see.Devs must like hook swarms because they keep buffing them. Benny Hill by Daylight is the status quo here.
3 -
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.
4 -
Be careful with that tunnel vision, you might go blind.
2 -
@Tzeentchling9 said:
DeadByFlashlight said:You actually have to wait till the unhook is finished and pray that they dont have sprint burst ready.
No point praying, they definitely will have it up since the devs shadow-implemented the complete recovery of exhaustion when hooked.
Oh wow....
0 -
@SenzuDuck said:
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.Yes thats how far they have went now. Kinda ridiculous
0 -
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.
2 -
I didn't have any problem because I don't camp. It is not that hard to play the game without hard camping.
Still, It shouldn't be that hard to down an unhooked injured survivor.
1 -
@Delfador said:
I didn't have any problem because I don't camp. It is not that hard to play the game without hard camping.Still, It shouldn't be that hard to down an unhooked injured survivor.
There was a guy who had a problem with it. IIRC, it was something like one Survivor was dead, two others were in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth, who managed to unhook himself. No camping is required for this to be a problem.
It's amazing how people forget about hook farming and the fact that you can unhook yourself whenever hook-related problems are brought up.
0 -
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
2 -
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
0 -
Easy to accuse someone else of lying when you don't know all the facts, isn't it?
0 -
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
1 -
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
0 -
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
1 -
Ok to the one calling him a camper think about it this way being followed about constantly then as soo as u hook they rush a save or 3 man swam it how is it camping if there all there and not on gens that's basic if your all trying so hard to save prepare for slugging2
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
1 -
When's the wedding?1
-
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.I think the mentioned above video is kinda iffy to say when you put it as a logical viewpoint, but I can see WHY they did it. It's to prevent dull moments that would've continued on if the meg didn't have immunity; but it's broken in the sense where it could end up giving free escapes. So yes, the unfreeing yourself immunity is clearly broken. You should make sure you're stating and making it clear.
The unhook where someone else performs it, the i-frame is not broken. I barely noticed the changes - mainly because I tend to chase and down the unhooker not the unhooked - but regardless if I needed the quick kill, it's barely noticed the I-frame because you actually have to time your hit. Sounds familiar.... like the decently good flashlight nerf that happened where you ACTUALLY have to time the save. Wow! I can't imagine having to try so hard for anything
Aside from sarcasm, it's clear the attempt escape unhook needs tweaking.
1 -
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
oooh ooooh ohhh, even better - please show me where I put the blame on the killer, I would love to see where I said that.
I'm simply saying it's stupid to say "survivors" support this when you lack the evidence.
I think you've got me confused with someone else and replied to me instead of them, tbh.
1 -
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
oooh ooooh ohhh, even better - please show me where I put the blame on the killer, I would love to see where I said that.
I'm simply saying it's stupid to say "survivors" support this when you lack the evidence.
I think you've got me confused with someone else and replied to me instead of them, tbh.
Your first comment in this thread:
@SenzuDuck said:
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.How is this not putting the blame on the Killer? Or was it just trolling?
1 -
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
oooh ooooh ohhh, even better - please show me where I put the blame on the killer, I would love to see where I said that.
I'm simply saying it's stupid to say "survivors" support this when you lack the evidence.
I think you've got me confused with someone else and replied to me instead of them, tbh.
Your first comment in this thread:
@SenzuDuck said:
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.How is this not putting the blame on the Killer? Or was it just trolling?
Supporting the idea that you should be protected when you can't control the character is fine.
If the iframes are too long, and it's a bug then it should be changed.
This is my chance, the invincibility frames are fine, but if they're lasting too long then it's a bug and unintentional behaviour so it should be fixed.
You saying that all survivors support this bug is the same as me saying all killers support the bug where they aren't being stunned in pallets. Both are bugs, both should be fixed.
but again - camping is gross and I never do it so the iframe thing would probably never ever affect me, I always go after the unhooker.
3 -
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
oooh ooooh ohhh, even better - please show me where I put the blame on the killer, I would love to see where I said that.
I'm simply saying it's stupid to say "survivors" support this when you lack the evidence.
I think you've got me confused with someone else and replied to me instead of them, tbh.
Your first comment in this thread:
@SenzuDuck said:
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.How is this not putting the blame on the Killer? Or was it just trolling?
Supporting the idea that you should be protected when you can't control the character is fine.
If the iframes are too long, and it's a bug then it should be changed.
This is my chance, the invincibility frames are fine, but if they're lasting too long then it's a bug and unintentional behaviour so it should be fixed.
You saying that all survivors support this bug is the same as me saying all killers support the bug where they aren't being stunned in pallets. Both are bugs, both should be fixed.
but again - camping is gross and I never do it so the iframe thing would probably never ever affect me, I always go after the unhooker.
It's a bug? I thought it was just latency, maybe pallets were now client-side or something.
I'd prefer not to camp as well in the vast majority of situations, but Survivors just keep coming up to the hook asking me how I got to be so tall.
1 -
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
oooh ooooh ohhh, even better - please show me where I put the blame on the killer, I would love to see where I said that.
I'm simply saying it's stupid to say "survivors" support this when you lack the evidence.
I think you've got me confused with someone else and replied to me instead of them, tbh.
Your first comment in this thread:
@SenzuDuck said:
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.How is this not putting the blame on the Killer? Or was it just trolling?
Supporting the idea that you should be protected when you can't control the character is fine.
If the iframes are too long, and it's a bug then it should be changed.
This is my chance, the invincibility frames are fine, but if they're lasting too long then it's a bug and unintentional behaviour so it should be fixed.
You saying that all survivors support this bug is the same as me saying all killers support the bug where they aren't being stunned in pallets. Both are bugs, both should be fixed.
but again - camping is gross and I never do it so the iframe thing would probably never ever affect me, I always go after the unhooker.
It's a bug? I thought it was just latency, maybe pallets were now client-side or something.
I'd prefer not to camp as well in the vast majority of situations, but Survivors just keep coming up to the hook asking me how I got to be so tall.
Prefer not to camp? Aren't you the guy that camped at rank 17 with a clown because you know, why not? You PREFER to camp, which is why you've had such an issue with this update.
and oh look "i thought it was just latency that's preventing pallet stuns in almost every match". I acknowledge that the Iframes are probably a bug, but something that helps killers was "just a latency" thing, lol.
2 -
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.Naturally, I'll ask for proof of anyone supporting "being invincible while running around" and you'll dodge the proof and not provide any while perpetuating your lies.
You are completely right, it was actually two dead, one in the dying state, and he was hooking the fourth. So sorry: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/21187/unhook-changes-for-how-long-survivor-has-immunity-after-freeing-himself-off-of-the-hook
ahh yes - look at all the people in that thread saying that this is fine and should stay that way, look at the plethora of people supporting this, just look at them all...
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Or are you just looking for a way to avoid admitting you were talking out of your ass about the i-frames not being broken?
Oohhh, this'll be fun - show me where I said they aren't broken.
By putting the blame on the Killer, you are implicitly saying that i-frames are fine. After all, it's the Killer's fault; not the i-frames'. Given that they're broken, one can only conclude that you support them being broken. Tons of people doing the same - putting all the blame on the Killer for "camping" or "tunneling" when the fact is, i-frames are broken.
oooh ooooh ohhh, even better - please show me where I put the blame on the killer, I would love to see where I said that.
I'm simply saying it's stupid to say "survivors" support this when you lack the evidence.
I think you've got me confused with someone else and replied to me instead of them, tbh.
Your first comment in this thread:
@SenzuDuck said:
When you camp and still can't down the injured person, waaaaaaa.How is this not putting the blame on the Killer? Or was it just trolling?
Supporting the idea that you should be protected when you can't control the character is fine.
If the iframes are too long, and it's a bug then it should be changed.
This is my chance, the invincibility frames are fine, but if they're lasting too long then it's a bug and unintentional behaviour so it should be fixed.
You saying that all survivors support this bug is the same as me saying all killers support the bug where they aren't being stunned in pallets. Both are bugs, both should be fixed.
but again - camping is gross and I never do it so the iframe thing would probably never ever affect me, I always go after the unhooker.
It's a bug? I thought it was just latency, maybe pallets were now client-side or something.
I'd prefer not to camp as well in the vast majority of situations, but Survivors just keep coming up to the hook asking me how I got to be so tall.
Prefer not to camp? Aren't you the guy that camped at rank 17 with a clown because you know, why not? You PREFER to camp, which is why you've had such an issue with this update.
and oh look "i thought it was just latency that's preventing pallet stuns in almost every match". I acknowledge that the Iframes are probably a bug, but something that helps killers was "just a latency" thing, lol.
Aren't you the guy who tried to judge my entire playstyle from one single trial? Maybe you should gather more data, or STFU. Either works.
I haven't had any problems with the i-frames after getting the timing right. Why are you lying?I've had it happen twice that I can remember, so yes, I did think it was just a matter of latency. Excuse me if I'm not omniscient as you clearly believe yourself to be.
1 -
@Orion said:
Aren't you the guy who tried to judge my entire playstyle from one single trial? Maybe you should gather more data, or STFU. Either works.You self incriminate by saying you've figured the timing out already, that's a lot of practice camping buddy.
I haven't had any problems with the i-frames after getting the timing right. Why are you lying?
So you admit you're still camping despite saying I judged you on one game? Lol, forever bad at gaming, poor Orion, lets all hold his hand.
I've had it happen twice that I can remember, so yes, I did think it was just a matter of latency. Excuse me if I'm not omniscient as you clearly believe yourself to be.
Obviously such an astute killer like yourself would ignore missed stuns and carry on with the game instead of thinking "oh, that should have totally stunned me".
2 -
It's too bad you've gone back to trolling, I was hoping we could have a civil conversation. I'll wait for someone else's PoV.
0 -
Yes, It is BS. Something worst happened to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4z9JVUspsA1 -
@Brady said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.I think the mentioned above video is kinda iffy to say when you put it as a logical viewpoint, but I can see WHY they did it. It's to prevent dull moments that would've continued on if the meg didn't have immunity; but it's broken in the sense where it could end up giving free escapes. So yes, the unfreeing yourself immunity is clearly broken. You should make sure you're stating and making it clear.
The unhook where someone else performs it, the i-frame is not broken. I barely noticed the changes - mainly because I tend to chase and down the unhooker not the unhooked - but regardless if I needed the quick kill, it's barely noticed the I-frame because you actually have to time your hit. Sounds familiar.... like the decently good flashlight nerf that happened where you ACTUALLY have to time the save. Wow! I can't imagine having to try so hard for anything
Aside from sarcasm, it's clear the attempt escape unhook needs tweaking.
Honestly, I think one of two things should happen:
- BHVR removes the i-frames until the possibility of a free escape has been eliminated.
- The unhooker becomes Exposed during the unhooking action in order to discourage Survivors from rushing in for the unhook.
Also, the i-frames should not apply to Survivors unhooking themselves and Survivors shouldn’t be able to cancel the unhooking action instantly. If you kobe/get caught unhooking near the Killer, then that’s your fault and you deserve to go down again.
1 -
i've hit people who've been running off the hook for a few seconds and they're still invincible, something is bugged2
-
SnakeSound222 said:
@Brady said:
@Orion said:
Yes, OP, it's broken at the moment. One guy hit the Survivor after they'd already started running and they were still invincible. Naturally, all the Survivor mains support this as it is now.I think the mentioned above video is kinda iffy to say when you put it as a logical viewpoint, but I can see WHY they did it. It's to prevent dull moments that would've continued on if the meg didn't have immunity; but it's broken in the sense where it could end up giving free escapes. So yes, the unfreeing yourself immunity is clearly broken. You should make sure you're stating and making it clear.
The unhook where someone else performs it, the i-frame is not broken. I barely noticed the changes - mainly because I tend to chase and down the unhooker not the unhooked - but regardless if I needed the quick kill, it's barely noticed the I-frame because you actually have to time your hit. Sounds familiar.... like the decently good flashlight nerf that happened where you ACTUALLY have to time the save. Wow! I can't imagine having to try so hard for anything
Aside from sarcasm, it's clear the attempt escape unhook needs tweaking.
Honestly, I think one of two things should happen:
- BHVR removes the i-frames until the possibility of a free escape has been eliminated.
- The unhooker becomes Exposed during the unhooking action in order to discourage Survivors from rushing in for the unhook.
Also, the i-frames should not apply to Survivors unhooking themselves and Survivors shouldn’t be able to cancel the unhooking action instantly. If you kobe/get caught unhooking near the Killer, then that’s your fault and you deserve to go down again.
That makes camping too strong.They just need to change SB. That's the only perk that nearly guarantees an escape after unhook.0
