http://dbd.game/killswitch
I don't hate Dead Hard
I've seen a lot of talk about Dead Hard here recently, and I thought I'd chip in with some feedback of my own.
I'd much rather face Dead Hard than Sprint Burst (or even Lithe in some circumstances). Dead Hard requires making a read a lot of the time, and as killer you can prevent it from activating successfully. With Sprint Burst, they end up halfway across the map, and there isn't all that much you can do about it on most killers. Having to spend 15-20 seconds catching up before the chase even starts feels super tedious.
Probably one of the most annoying things to deal with in this game is someone sitting on a generator with Sprint Burst ready, and they know they're completely safe. The second you get close enough, they just zoom off into the distance, and you have to go through the chore of catching up if you want to chase them.
Dead Hard just generally feels more interactive than some of the Haste-based exhaustion perks. While being able to tank an extra hit is undeniably very strong, the fact that it's read-based means you have a chance to deal with it as a killer a lot of the time.
Comments
-
I'd take fifty sprint bursts over dead hard. I've been "waiting it out" for years. Hugging survivor's asses and playing the spin spin spin game thousands of times. Just tired of it. It's time for a change.
4 -
Pssst
Did you know that after a survivor Sprint Bursts away, you don't have to chase them?
They'll probably come back to that same gen on their own, and as long as you also come back before their Exhaustion is done, you get an Exhaustion perk free chase.
5 -
Assuming they even come back to the same generator and don't go work on a different one, having to dance around a generator to bait a Sprint Burst user back to a gen wastes a bunch of time anyway.
Plus they can just run early until they get their Exhaustion back.
0 -
Dead Hard is mostly hated because of "wait it out" stuff. Oh and it's similiar to old DS, you have to assume everyone has it even if they don't (if they haven't used an exhaustion perk), which is also annoying.
I haven't played against many SB recently (maybe because i havent been playing for the past week :x) so I can't really tell which I would prefer.
3 -
At least you know they have sprint burst BEFORE you commit a crazy amount of time to a chase.
you get to make what's called a "meaningful decision"
with Dead hard there just ... no such thing. you either assume they have it all the time or pay the price of a third, free health state (No, I don't consider pressing "E" a "cost", just get good.)
4 -
The idea that Dead Hard doesn't personally bother you, so it must be fine is a little ridiculous, and self-centered too. It suggests that "Mine is the only fun that matters".
I don't personally mind dying as a Survivor all that much. It goes with the territory when you're a solo player, what matters is that you did all you could. But I don't act like Survivors who find themselves dying over and over even when they did really well that match don't have a legitimate grievance. Which is one reason I welcomed the solo queue buffs.
2 -
I mean, yeah you can just not chase them, but having a Survivor be essentially unchaseable without a massive deficit to your pressure is kinda ridiculous. If you leave them alone, they're going to continue working on generators. Sprint Burst directly makes generators significantly harder to pressure.
Dead Hard can buy you a lot of time in a chase if it procs successfully, but you can bait it out. With SB, they just end up halfway across the map and you can't really do much about it.
0 -
So because my opinion doesn't match yours, you're saying me giving my feedback to the developers is self-centered and ridiculous?
That's a pretty unreasonable thing to say.
3 -
How many matches of 4 Dead Hards would it take to change your tune?
1 -
I'd rather face 4 Dead Hards than 4 Sprint Bursts any day of the week.
0 -
you cant bait out Dead Hard against any person who actually knows how to use Dead Hard, they will proceed to a loop that will force you to either not attack and they proceed to safety, or you hit them and they use Dead Hard...and they proceed to safety.
You should watch videos on how almost frame perfect people can time their Dead Hards to the point where it looks like they didnt even press the button at all.
Even if you dont use it to bait out, you can use it to bide the time to cross a pallet without injury, which in and of itself is massive.
1 -
So forever? impressive determination. I rather not do that.
1 -
This constant DH talk is really exhausting. Yeah for some reason people really do think DH is uncounterable and undervalue SB, i don't know why.
And i guess they also say, its not fun to sniff a survivors ass. But that is a lie, they do it all the time even without DH
2 -
And exactly this is not true at all.
You can guess they will use DH instead of dropping pallet and you can time it to that short time when DH animation ends, but pallet is not thrown. This favors survivors, but I have seen plenty killers (me included) get the timing right.
Windows are even easier - if you guess he'll vault, you just do full distance lounge (once space is pressed he can't change it to E and he can't wait, because it would be midvault). If you guess he would use E, you just don't lounge at that window - and watch akward survivor's animation.
If you win this guess, you get hit. If you loose it, survivor gets away.
0 -
Playing against DH is really exhausting. For some reason people really do think DH is fair, fun and balanced despite all evidence to the contrary.
You are aware that DH is so ingrained in the meta that you have to treat everyone like they have it?
2 -
When someone has stopped defending their opinions and is instead defending their right to have one, there's a problem.
1 -
I wasn't referring to sniffing my butt for DH xD
0 -
You can't attack someone for having a differing opinion and then get upset when they tell you that's unreasonable.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith here.
2 -
Problem lies when you are in lunge range when they are reaching the pallet.
Do you lunge? Eat Dead Hard. Do you now lunge because of Dead Hard? Eat the pallet or just continue the loop. On a non-dead hard situation, the killer can lunge and get the hit.
Win-win situation for the survivor.
1 -
Might I refer you back to my 2nd paragraph please? I just described exactly this situation. But if my explanation is lacking, maybe you would understand it better from Scott:
0 -
I did see that video when it was released, and both that Scott case and your second paragraph explains what to do if the survivor uses DH and you are in "swing" range. Doesn't explain the win-win situation if the killer is in "lunge" range.
You are like 1 meter away from the survivor, while the survivor reaches de pallet. What do you do?
In your explanation, survivor used DH and then you swing, but that's not my situation at all. On my situation, the survivor does not need to Dead Hard because you are still not in melee range, you are at lunge distance.
Again, without having DH into ecuation, you could just lunge to close the 1 meter distance and hit the survivor before he has a chance to throw the pallet.
With DH you are ######### as the killer. If you lunge, the survivor reacts and DH. If you don't lunge, you are still not in melee range, so the survivor just uses the pallet and wins chase.
If on that situation the survivor uses DH before you doing anything, that survivor is not good, sorry.
Also, sorry, Scott is prob a ver good player but biased as hell. He says that DH is used because of the "fun" factor. No, sorry, i have been seeing plenty of "for fun" builds that have underused perks but funny as hell, and i can find maybe 1 person per 3-4 matches using a "for fun" build. DH is not meta for 6 years and the most used survivor perks because "it's fun". It is because is strong as hell.
1 -
If it's 1m, then there's no time to react. If it's more then 1m, then that survivor can throw the pallet regardless. The problem is when he's just at the edge of the pallet but not quite there. And we are talking about perk that can help you once per chase in this very specific situation - then sure it's strong perk, but what kind of usage would you consider fair if not this? Like make it so that in every single situation the perk can fail (spoiler it already can - you need very good timing and both sides need good and stable ping)?
No other exhaustion perk (but smash hit that is universally considered worst exhaustion perk) will always have such a high chance to fail as DH (btw that's also the reason why I personally prefer balanced landing over DH - pure reliance and hope that the other side has good internet just feels too bad for me to ever use it again).
Also I agree with Scott if we take community as whole - DH gives you extra option in situations where there's otherwise none. That will be always more interesting. Sure in higher MMR, it's more of a standard, because it gives you extra options you can usually use reasonably well (but DH usually fails spectacularly in mid-to-low MMR - meaning it fails more often then not for majority of player base).
Also did you not ever encounter things like someone picking up person to your face with DH to survive that action? Or someone walking to hook with you, toolbox ready at hand, sabotaging after getting hit and DH-ing away right after? Or people going to hook taking extra hits bodyblocking way over their 1 health state? Or someone tanking exposed hit with DH for healthy person (say you use NOED or are camping iri head huntress)? Or any other situation where DH will bail you out - but you risk your skin in the process and getting the timing just slightly off can result in huge throw on survivor side? Because I see this "for fun" DH plays in higher MMR quite regularly - and as you can see most of those (sabo example excluded) don't need specific build for it (even if having such build sure helps).
And things like these sure can annoy killers, but they are also reason why even survivors with many thousands of hours enjoy the game so much - these stupid plays are just best feeling ever when they are successful - and they can be so much fun, that you are able to put up with next 2 games where killer just camps his 3gen for 30mins straight.
0 -
At 1m there is totally time to react. A basic lunge is reactable by anyone watching at the killer. And losing that "win-win" situation makes you potentially lose the chase already, wasting all the time you spent or to add another 30-40 seconds to a chase. And that win-win (for the survivor) situation is created many times per game, times that if there wasn't a DH, that would have been a hit to the killer.
Want to also add something related to this: DH competely removes the killer's lunge from the game once the survivor is wounded. Literally. As the killer, if the survivor is injured, you will never ever be able to lunge, unless you start the lunge somewhat on a wall that is taller than you and the survivor doesn't see you.
DH is not only the strongest survivor perk in the game (hell i would even say is the strongest perk in the game counting both killer and survivor perks), it's also extremely unfun that the only counter (on those that are not win-win situations in pallets) is to just....."do nothing for X seconds and hope the survivor uses it".
Don't really want to bring Eruption again on these kind of discussion, but do you know what perk was nerfed because it made the survivors spend too much time "doing nothing"? Yes you did guess it.
As a killer i don't find it funny to lose my lunge entirely, have to walk until i am sniffing the surv ass and spend here some seconds doing absolutely nothing at all because "hey he maybe has dead hard, and if he uses it, gg chase lost".
DH has everything. Is strong as hell, and is unfun as hell for the other side. Literally it makes the killer stay still for some seconds and thats not a healthy counter for a perk.
Finally, i think people really really underestimate those extra seconds every survivor is buying thanks to a "passive" Dead Hard (i say "passive" because even if you don't have it, you MUST think everyone has it, at least at first). If you add some seconds after some seconds after some seconds many times, you can easily have games where the killer did nothing for like 40-50 seconds. Literally 40-50 seconds of free gen time. Wasn't Eruption nerfed for that exact same reason but at the other way?
I did find Eruption funny and rewarding. First i needed to kick gens, losing time in the process, then to actually win a chase before that gen was completed. For me, it was funny as hell to see the survivors scream and knowing they will not be able to do anything for 25 seconds, only after catching that survivor, which felt really rewarding. But hey, i knew that was not normal and needed to be nerfed hard, because, who has fun by doing nothing in a game?
1 -
You haven't addressed my actual argument at all, and you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith?
What I originally said was that "Dead Hard doesn't bother me personally, so it must be fine" is bad logic, and I even backed it up with examples.
Then you started going on this weird tirade about how "That's just like, your opinion, man".
1 -
I disagree.
He responded to your concerns, in obvious good faith, if you actually read the post you wouldn't make that claim you just made.
That's where I'll call it out.
I treat every survivors as if they didn't have it at first because I hate losing to perks I haven't seen yet...
The amount of free games survivors gets on me for that makes me consider the uninstall button every days...
The fun I have when this singular perk don't show up is the ONLY reason I still play.
SB I can ignore and or play around. DH... I can't, there is no meaningful decision for a killer to make... always a silly gamble that we more often than not lose at higher levels of play because, you know, pressing E isn't hard unless you make excuses for it.
0 -
"Why do you hate me for having a different opinion?" is a non-argument. How am I to engage in good faith with a statement so absurdly reductive and misrepresentative of me that it could apply to any statement voicing any disagreement with the original post?
2 -
You quoted me but then... mentioned something someone else said...
I'm sorry to ask, but are you a bot?
Do you read the posts?
I am legit confused.
0 -
Well, I'm confused too. From the look of your initial reply to me, you were disagreeing with the OP about DH and SB (Which is in line with what I was arguing), but you only mentioned me and not them.
1 -
I get it now! I thought you were replying to that other guy but you were replying another person entirely.
It's on me, I felt something was off lol.
I goofed up lmao
0
