Scott jund only speaks truth
Comments
-
Thank god my forum name isn't my twitch, otherwise I'd get insta banned the second you'd see me in chat next time :kappa
Keep up the good work. Love ya
1 -
You actually think reversed controls are a good idea? there would be more disconnects against clown than Legion, Nurse and Freddy put together.
1 -
I like how you mention Nurse and not Spirit. But yeah, I do, its better than slowdown IMO.
0 -
Honestly I haven't seen the video, so I'm going just off of what I've read here...
I like that idea. Saints Row 3 had a boss fight that pulled that gimmick, one of my favorites in the series. Would love to see it in pvp. So he hits you with the fart jar and suddenly down is up and up is down? That sounds like fun to play against and with.
0 -
How is he not a killer main when the majority of his hours are on killer?
2 -
If its any consolation I agree that's the weakest part of my Clown suggestions.
3 -
Oooh okay that makes sense, my bad.
1 -
I love Scott and all of his vids are pretty spot on but good lord he just seems so unhappy when he covers DBD content anymore.
I mean, it's understandable and it's what makes him money but I really wish he'd look into other games to help him cheer up lol
0 -
Never trust anyone who hates Scott
0 -
Uh... No.
0 -
But to go back to the main topic, Scott's opinions on DBD are for the most part sensible. The only issue with him is his stans who treat him as the only unbiased or intelligent DBD creator figure.
Post edited by Gay Myers (Luzi) on3 -
Look, I don't hate the guy. But whenever I see a post about "X Youtuber has such a good opinion" it just makes me wish you'd stop venerating them so I can address their points fairly. It's very difficult to take what someone says at face value when all I hear is how great they are.
Again, I don't hate Scott. But every post like this I see builds up my resentment just a little more. Even if you completely agree with his opinions can you at least not put him onto a pedestal?
1 -
Make a macro that reverses your controls with the push of a button.
Bam entire rework turned obsolete. And there would be a lot of people that would do this cause reverse controls are just annoying
0 -
I don't hate him but I disagree with "Spirit has no counter" and "Deathslinger has no counter". Meanwhile Nurse exists.
1 -
I didn't expect Jund of all people to notice this thread. Perhaps you were told about it.
And that's because it isn't, it's my personal reasons and your fans keep zeroing in on this.
Some of your arguments are also demonstrably false, the Spirit one in particular. A reason your opinions are so wide-spread is because you said what the community wanted to hear: "Spirit and Sling have no counterplay, just give up and suicide on the hook." It's much easier to give up and say "it's impossible" since it takes the burden of trying off of a person.
Not to mention that you apparently made a short 10 second Youtube video mocking people who complained about stretched res?
Apparently, this is what they mean. They're referring to modifying the game files IIRC. Do you still think it doesn't exist?
3 -
Still a political connection, and I don't want to think about Trump when looking up DBD videos.
I can have my own personal reasons for disliking Jund.
0 -
His video was making fun of people who used stretched RES, not people who complained about it.
0 -
That's about what I expected from someone who is trying to defend Jund. "She doesn't".
This has already been responded to effectively in past topics, and I just woke up after playing Civ 5 until midnight last night.... so I will remedy this as best as I can... but you are supposed to be using your ears and mind against Spirit. The entire community struggles because they keep using their eyes and nothing else and then get mad when they get hit and downed. The only valid complaint is standing still, however that has it's own issues. Stridor Spirit is another complex issue that I doubt the DBD devs will be able to fix reliably.
You are supposed to be predicting what the Spirit will do based off of things that are happening. This is easier than you think if you know how a Killer operates and you can predict where she's going to phase. Whether she's phasing to a gen, to a Survivor, this can be predicted by guessing what the most likely "immediate problem" a Killer will want to address first.
I also don't want to be thinking about American politics when searching for DBD videos, and I don't care about a DBD Youtuber's thoughts on things. His views have nothing to do with DBD takes, I find his actions annoying, and I am free to express my disapproval. I can dislike Jund for these reasons. This is basically a outlier anyways and irrelevant to DBD. Stop before this topic gets modded.
"If he has a platform and popularity etc" no, his platform was started by his DBD videos and he made a Twitter while using his name to get people to follow it, then he uses that attention to make political takes.
I was again listing why I didn't like Jund.
1 -
And where was this stated? Because the obvious, first impression is that he is mocking the people who complained by showing a res that doesn't help at all.
0 -
Nope, there's other reasons. And you mean me, I'm the only one who is "mad". I've already explained the actual problem.
But yes, there is a problem with his stans. Tru3 and Otz have their own but Jund stans seems to be the most... vocal.
Post edited by Gay Myers (Luzi) on0 -
well hate goes far but Otz does plenty that makes me...disappointed in him
0 -
Have you watched the video? It is him making fun of people using it. The video is comically extremely stretched and he talks about how he just thinks it looks nice and it totally doesnt give an advantage, when in reality it doesnt look good and its used for an advantage.
4 -
What has Otz done that is disappointing?
1 -
All of that is understandable, though Spirit makes no sound to queue you into what she's doing while phasing so don't know where that came from.
Anyways, I have no interest in continuing this conversation. You can dislike him all you want but you were attempting to discredit him based on things you personally disliked and disagreed with, rather than what he has done wrong.
2 -
he plays mostly killer??
he voices both killer and survivor perspective despite playing mostly killer ( he plays survivors only for meme builds).
He's other takes are usually frankly bad? Well, I guess he's wrong about calling ds, unbreakable a small pp build. Or that the gens are too fast to repair? or that comms are very strong? or that the trickster is bad? Well, I guess he's wrong about that too? i guess i gotta run ds, unbreakable, soul guard then. and also gen rush, cause he was wrong
1 -
I've seen people send death threats to certain streamers because they're THAT salty with the game, it's disgusting really
2 -
Scott is exactly right about their possible over-reliance on big data. If anything, it's a tool to add some context to empirical observations.
You don't need months of data to see specific instances where Trickster is bad. That's what playtesting at a high level is for. Granted, the data will ultimately reflect his failings, but they're causing unnecessary conflict and inefficiency by balancing in the least efficient way possible. They're taking months to figure out what a player with thousands of hours can tell you in 10 games.
They're simply choosing not to utilize the PTB or Fog Whisperers, whether it be out of pride, stubbornness, etc.
5 -
While sometimes I dont agree with him he does seem to be the guy who has the best grasp at mechanical and gameplay level of all streamers and realizes several problems with both the comunity, the developer team and the game itself, unlike other streamers who usually reek of bias from miles away (from BOTH sides) Scott tends to remain somewhat neutral when analyzing the problems he sees and he does manage to coalesce all the whining from the forums into some logical and well structured arguments.
He nailed the problems with Spirit, DS and PH for example, he was the person who managed to put together an argument, not against those Killers, but against the gameplay decissions the team was making where all what mattered was Killer input and Survivors did nothig but either pray the Killer was bad or eat a hit that they could not dodge (I believe Trickster was shiped as weak as he was because they really took the advice of looking for counterplay before releasing wathever crossed their minds, and I think is better to release something weak and then buff it than releasing something like first iteration CamperHead and then having to patch him twice).
In other instances (like the PGTW or the Big Data) I do not agree but he always has a valid point and several arguments in his favor, I use Pop since Clown got released and the 15 second nerf is barely noticeable and I dont think BHVR looks at Big Data much, if they did look several maps would have been already changed before the ones that got changed and a lot of Killers would have been nerfed by now since all of them broke the 50% intended balance treshold (for non absurdity lets say a 65% kill rate is acceptable and balanced, a lot of them were over 65%) and this was before new nerfs to Survivors, fixing of certain maps (except The Game) and buffs to several Killers which would have make the ratio go slightly higher.
2 -
He makes some good points here and some bad ones.
I agree 100% with what he said about big data being useful as a sign that something might need to be addressed, but that it shouldn't be much more than that. I agree that specifically soliciting feedback from experienced players is a good idea; that feedback will not necessarily always be correct, but it's still useful to get some perspective.
I disagree about the pace of the changes in this game being ridiculously slow. A DLC with new characters, new abilities, and a new map (or reworks to multiple old ones), in addition to general balance changes and bug fixes, and other reworks and feature additions (e.g. colorblind mode, animation changes), is a pretty decent amount of content. That's pretty similar to what even huge franchises like Call of Duty did for years - they'd release a DLC roughly every quarter, each one consisting of a few new maps, but no new guns, perks, or balance changes. You needed to own the DLC to play the maps, unlike in DBD, and you also couldn't get the rest of the content for free just by playing the game, unlike DBD. I have no idea how DBD compares to other games in terms of the number of FTEs dedicated to it, so it's hard for me to say anything about how efficient they are or how much room for improvement there is. Most other multiplayer games honestly seem to release new content as slow or slower than BHVR, but with the benefit of a more stable game.
I agree that the devs should be held accountable if they commit to a date, don't hit it, and just never mention it again (hello 60 FPS on all platforms!), but I disagree that the max transparency approach is clearly the right one. Let's say, for example, that the devs say "We've heard your feedback and Trickster changes are in the works". Some people might simmer down and correctly understand that they're aware of the community feedback and the changes will be ready when they're ready. Most of the people who would think this way are not the ones rioting already, though; they were already calm and understanding that the devs are going to hear the community feedback and make some changes down the line. So, this communication probably wouldn't win over as many people as you'd think. Plus, people would start rioting all over again the moment the next patch releases if the changes weren't included. It wouldn't matter to them that the devs never committed a date for those changes. It wouldn't matter to them that delaying an important bug fix patch just so that the first patch after the DLC release has the balance changes they've been complaining about is actually worse than getting two patches so the critical bug fixes could get out early. They just hoped or assumed they'd be out quickly and held the devs accountable for not meeting their own unrealistic expectations. We saw this exact thing play out when people got mad that All Kill didn't get released last week despite the devs never having committed a date for it. They just put up the PTB and made some posts about the upcoming killer, thus clearly showing that the DLC is coming, and people assumed it would launch three weeks later because that's how things usually went for past DLCs. If they had said it would launch in three weeks and then it was delayed due to console patch approval issues, people would be rioting all the same. If they said four weeks so as to make sure they'd hit the deadline, people would complain they were slow and going even slower than usual. At that point you're still in the same exact sort of damage control mode but you're also spending (wasting?) a lot of time on community relations on top of it.
But this wouldn't be an issue if they were exceptionally clear and transparent! Let's imagine they say, "alright, screw it, we're tired of people jumping to conclusions so we're just going to make our internal bug/feature tracker public for max transparency in addition to the information we communicate normally". Then you have the people whining because you aren't prioritizing their pet issue highly enough, or because you moved back a target date (even if it's due to factors beyond your control), or because you're working on a change they don't like the sound of. At the end of the day, the community is going to whine no matter what they do, so I don't blame them for trying to use the underpromise/overdeliver model. It's more efficient time-wise while probably not negatively impacting the community as much as people would think.
TL;DR, managing unrealistic expectations is basically an unwinnable battle. At the end of the day, provided they're listening to feedback and making the game better, which I feel they generally have been, I'm happy.
Most games you love are not so great because the devs are insanely responsive. The game itself is just great. DBD started miles in red in terms of content, balance, graphics, etc. and it of course still has a ton of issues, but it's undeniably fun and has slowly but surely been improving over time. Making sensible improvements to the game will do more for player satisfaction than transparency ever will.
3 -
I appreciate this post, even if I have a hard time reading long strands of text lol
1 -
He speaks only the truth huh?
So that means that otz is a robot
1 -
I can't disagree about the transparency- it's almost non-existant and I believe with all my heart that some GREAT things can come out of regularly engaging with the player base.
We don't even need high-level explanations for why certain decisions are made. There's a reason why writer's are encouraged to write at a 7th grade reading level- because it's the most accessible for the most ppl. Same thing here: We don't need a technical manual, just upfront answers.
1 -
Happy April fools to you too
0 -
Thanks buddy :) I do tend to get carried away with post lengths lol
1 -
The video is wrong, they change killers based off stats. so they changed nurse because her stats were high which did not take a genus to figure out with 5 blinks/omega blink. They will change trickster when they find out his stats are abysmal 2 months later. Its how BVHR works. I do not agree with balancing by stats but that is just direction they choose to go.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.bhvr.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
