• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chickeninja last won the day on July 9

Chickeninja had the most liked content!

About Chickeninja

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

772 profile views
  1. Looks like fun! Good games and good luck to all participants, arbiters, and moderators (I imagine this to be a clean event and therefore assume these to be independent; i.e. participant cannot moderate/arbitrate, call a foul, call cheat/abort/unfair play, formulate rules etc. for obvious reasons) and hope to see some footage and buzz, whether as broadcasts or video/edits. Make sure to post em (here, steam, other forums + everywhere) for those who can't make it while pushing for consensus on the patch changes that would make game play more attractive.
  2. Reporting players may be of no relevance to devs but it does help orient towards the kinds of usernames people like to join and/or avoid. And people keep switching names so the topic remains relevant for folks to not waste their gaming time, even if some of the concerns of @Ericfernandez have been met by devs in the meantime such as having decreased the number of camping spots (even if there still are a few left... heck, anybody that plays somewhat regularly will find new ones every week in game worlds of this size) and introduction of the time out system. The double hunter issue has been raised again here and like a moth to a streetlight: This should be a feature , at least for veterans who don't always care about wins and enjoy mixing up the game even if the opposing side is OP at times. This game has so many potential flavors, it is unfortunate to see everything locked down to the state of the current patch. Makes me wonder how awesome "DL - The Real Deal Patch" would look like: all the OP hunter stuff, super speed for hunter, GP spit, Itackle, double hunter invasion together with all OP survivor stuff of infinite grappling hook cooldown, old tackle, juiciest layout for combos... the works version. Full range of possibilities. As to the players running around and setting double hunter up for folks to try... they played decent/polite around me, so I can't relate to or comment on the complaints.
  3. You're not alone. That used to be my sig on this forum: "More player control for multiplayer". The self-styled pros are not interested in control over parameters that could have them at a disadvantage as they're mostly interested in wins/rep and beginners don't have the experience to want to play around with settings. The practical reality then became that people who wanted those freedoms were driven to mods, cheats, and those that distribute the same, which was unfortunate in that it resulted in the typical scenario where a much wider spread of folks modds the game, often against the will of their opponents in multiplayer who didn't; finally compromising player satisfaction for a larger group of people than say the few folks who'd have been intimidated by another menu or two. I guess this development was in the interest of developers, as the scandals, imbalances, and online buzz seem to have driven sales and stats. As for the current settings: as good as they are in terms of balance stats, I find myself playing less these days as the game's balancing history feels like a story of playing privileges and degrees of freedom lost, for both hunters and survivors. Assuming more control for players in pvp would change things, if say unusual settings and their play were encouraged in an experimental and fun way, instead of always pushing the competitive aspect of multiplayer. I'm also getting a more skewed sense of performance: getting undeserved wins and losses more frequently doesn't help either. As if the quality of the game play is not reflected in the result. With more control for players over parameters the game could develop naturally and transparently without folks fearing losses or ranking down. I'm not saying I'd want the latest patch and/or ranking system to be ditched; I am saying that giving folks more degrees of freedom generally would refresh my interest in the game mode, as the potential we see with tweaked settings in weekend events is fun. Yes, two hunters are fun to play. Play becomes more complex though and controlling spawn locations and survivor/hunter abilities, like the the way Cartier and his opponents limited hunter abilities in their game by not employing pounces etc, seem necessary.
  4. Good ideas that mesh well with the narrative and character design: both the armor and the propane/gas ones. Every experienced crow survivor waiting for DFAs multiplies routes/attacks that hunters can't make. With 2v1 there is still some room, but above that it becomes harder to complicate things. And more gas tank stuff sounds fun if calibrated in such a way that the game mode doesn't change excessively into explosives assuming a dominant role in the play, what with remembering, placing, timing hundreds of traps etc. Doesn't the hunter have a lot of gas naturally, with all his organs decaying and eating too many survivors?
  5. Yeah, there was a distinct shift towards that lame attitude indeed. Not just with people using more cheats, and milking the game mode for wins without imagination, but in the online interaction as well: I used to see some high quality sophisticated trash talking frequently, with both sides having fun, instead of the increasingly knucklehead "Ah get wrecked noob, u suck, git good!" style exchanges, where folks try to outbid themselves in shallowness and negativity, I tend to experience a bit more these days. Yes, that was an awesome find though, irrespective of whether it is deemed exploit by people or not: it was fun. Also, it seems to be a valid tactic to break up multiple survivors (especially when facing groups of experienced players) that isn't just backed up by the stats, where we see survivors winning most PVP with 3 or more players, but also backed up by the core spirit of the game: If the hunter hunts, he has means of breaking up survivors other than waiting for them to misjudge ranges with surprise pounces, which is rather passive. And the risk-benefit ratio is decent because the hunter has to risk exposure to possibly multiple 2-handed weapon attacks with the gp in the first place, so getting that spit in is a logical reward for such risk in line with one of the core mantras we get fed in the hint screens and wikis: break up the group. Survivors that predict the move will have themselves a quick hunter platter, and those caught off guard will have to face complications. The current changes to this have more validity in 1v1 where this mechanism appears more op, which also seems to be relevant to turnout of the stats. Hope to see you around and hear your feedback if you do return, even though I think we play different time zones as I only have one or two memories of you obliterating me. The best strategy to defeat me, as hunter or survivor, is to joke around with the right kind of HD trash talk so much that my breathing is cut off and I have to wipe my eyes. Then folks can pounce, DFA, defeat me as much as they want, balanced or imbalanced because the laughs and people are where it's at for me, more than skills, level, rank, group etc. And then it's binary for me: either a game and its environments support laughing fits with bad jokes or they don't. And if they absolutely don't support that, I'm probably on my way to some beach, sunshine, pool, or planning my next trip to a place I haven't been or know with zero skills, zero work to think about, and where everybody is op to me. Location of nests, in or outside the game, is really crucial. Location, location, location! Timing! Good Food! That's an underrated way to adapt to cheaters and negativity in games, the internet etc. that appears to work fine imho and perhaps a bit better than raging/reporting people or ranting. Are you losing games? Don't bother nagging, reporting folks or ranting: Take more vacation! And I say this as the absolute authority in vacationing and taking breaks: nobody can beat me at these things, and if you think you can, then pm me, pay for my vacations, and we shall see! In this sense, totally unbeaten. Perfect score up to this day and ready for challenges.
  6. The stats are always a strong argument. And yeah, trying to explain that to folks interested in beating one another in the game to prove their point isn't easy. Skill has little relation to game design. One would naturally tend towards thinking that folks with high skill understand a game or competition better, due to such skills. But you could also make a plausible case that those who have or claim to have the highest skill, can be the worst at evaluating the game/competition they're in, as they face danger of excessive closeness and losing objectivity: they're so busy playing/winning, how'd they know to think outside their own bubble? With Lance Armstrong types in cycling for example: the best guy lied straight into people's faces for years and felt justified to do so because he was convinced to be "really the best". Winning a game doesn't prove anything (what if the other guy had a string of luck? Or 10 or 100 in a row?) and stats of thousands of games, while more convincing in terms of provability, may encourage new playing styles but also run the danger of missing what makes a game attractive. Because in attraction there is some non-statistical quality, like when people enjoy stuff for reasons that are hard to understand or statistically quantify. And for that reason both stats and everybody's views matter; even if those views are based on anecdotal evidence and impressions of a few games played personally. I think it is clear by now where most folks in this forum lean, but anybody out there who disagrees with us and finds the latest changes to be positive in nature and more appropriate regarding their own playing style: share your feedback and consider posting video/streams. Maybe you see things that the experienced folk around here don't see.
  7. Variants of this idea have been brought up in exchanges about duping, concerning weapons, potions, medkits, Zaid etc. a year ago iirc. Same for the variety of weapons and their "goldability". I could get behind such changes easily, especially if the hunter would see some love in terms of their preferences and playing style (i.e. could we see a skill set and corresponding ability tree perhaps for stealthy types, aggressive tactical playing styles, skin type and color etc.), which I know was never in the cards but folks can dream, right?
  8. To yours truly, and I align myself with similar statements/sentiments made in this thread and others, a hunter under these conditions/settings will have a really hard time handling 2 or more experienced survivors. Why not enable more degrees of freedom for hunters at least beyond 1v1 matches, in 1v2 up to 1v4, scaling his abilities along with experience of the survivors? Experienced hunter and two beginners: fine as it is. But Experienced hunter vs 4 experienced survivors: mega abilities for hunter: GP spit, incredible speed and tendril bounce... the whole fat 9 yards. The visceral video somehow makes the point for players skeptical concerning the current settings though: add a second spinoza and even THAT hunter, with supposed exploits and all, will be toast in most games. My problem never was with balance nor do I obsess over skills. It's aesthetics: The main problem is this hunter is much less attractive to play. And if changes to make him more attractive to play cost too much or are impractical, let people know and decide for themselves where they stand. I guess there are new things in the pipeline and the current state of multiplayer isn't exactly high priority. However, I don't see anybody making valid points for the current multiplayer settings right now. "Situationalism" with such an example is hard to find convincing. Everybody has to have incentive to play and it is hard to see what the current settings of the game accomplish, with folks having had the time to get used to them by now, I'm not sure the stats or team opinions should matter as much as folks/veterans playing.
  9. That's a good summary. There's so much experience in these forums, as I said to Emtrix, it'd be healthy for the community, e.g. for people who just beat the campaign and are getting into multiplayer to have some links referring to high quality PC/Console game play on Youtube say, if only to sort through the many videos and make sure people get up-to-date instructional info on mechanics, patches etc. that'll help their play, instead of being fun to watch or very flashy without much info. Awareness of map, general strategy themed videos, your item selection and switching routines, an advanced guide on the use of the grapple hook, how to hunt FAST... there are many possibilities here. With so many folks in this forum having experience and good advice, they could get themselves heard and seen more if they filled that need, as well as making the forum more useful, this late in the game, excuse the pun. And it doesn't have to be all self-edited vids either: threads with people sharing who and what they watch, or why it helps them, would be fine additions that'd help raise the bar in terms of quality play for everybody.
  10. I don't understand why you have to go on to volunteer information from your private life into a discussion on oversimplification related to an unfortunate patch change, but go ahead: share your whole life story if you feel like that's somehow connected. I have no comment, same as with intelligence, playing styles, skills etc. of other people. And no, there are examples in world history of where human cooperation, including factoring in the self-interest and abilities of different groups/individuals, prevails over primitive notions of elitism and discrimination. If you don't see this then perhaps your reading habits could use a Techland patch update. And if your definition of intelligence can be so easily derived from "who wins which competition or who wins in some test" - then you reduce intelligence to problem solving, when you could argue that it is more related to the general capacity to adapt to an unspecified situation without the simplifying comfort of a clear game, without a game's simple rules and objectives. For instance, it can be argued that the capacity to come up with new problems or games is closer to intelligence than excellence in just one game/test, which is closer to competence, like driving a car or something. Again on something like other peoples' intelligence or skills, I try not to simplify because people are more than their skills at solving games/problems, reputations, skin color, their illness or health, their age, their profiles, preferences, politics, religions, usefulness etc. Nothing wrong with competing? Yes in the casual sense, but perhaps less when people become too serious and take out real weapons, or for example get so hypnotized by games that they waste their lives gambling with themselves or playing games without having fun. Then competition with yourself can somehow damage imagination or even freedom, which I don't consider intelligent. Yes, these are all fun topics, but I'm less interested these days to discuss such things in public on the web, where people including yourself above, want everything spoon fed to them in less than 100 characters, even if the things they bring up are perhaps more nuanced/complicated than that. Such raw notions of intelligence or skills devalue real people, for example persons that don't play a game or persons that can't even afford a PC, children, or the many disabled people and so on, which is why I never found them as convincing as say a discovery in mathematics, science, art etc. in terms of indicating intelligence. I think the point that 1v1 is challenging from both sides, as long as it isn't dumbed down again and again... whatever the reason, has been made. The tips people offered were good and as survivor I sometimes had the impression that the many virals, goons, and particularly the bugs associated with them, e.g. kill a goon with a good shot only to have them vanish the next moment and spawn somewhere else are as frustrating as the hunter grabbing polygons on some hill or superfluous edge.
  11. It describes the oversimplification of invoking a personal concept of "the best" to push one's interpretation of the game at the price of community, fun of personal experience, and user friendliness that became a topic raised in this thread. If you can explain this "oversimplification" without nuance and precision in less words, then share it and I will be taking notes like your good student. I'm not so sure. For many people 1v1 is the most common form of multiplayer due to it being the most common and accessible result of the online matchmaking process. This notion of genuine courage being required to play a zombie game displays your fine sense of humor mocking teenagers, I suppose. It depends who they are. Some folks may play with such an attitude and with such values; my point is that there is a great variety of playing styles and insisting that everybody follow one's own playing style is unrealistic. That's already in danger of becoming elitism. And at some point such elitism turns into discrimination. With that logic only the most skilled/experienced players should exist and play alone. But how do the most skilled/experienced players acquire such experience? That's why elitism fails here and why all players' concerns and opinions make up the state of the game. Playing games is a casual activity. When games stop becoming casual entertainment, then you get competition. Competition is the real admission of the lack of imagination you speak of: it means there is no other way to decide who gets what, than to fight like animals. That's about as unimaginative/common as humans can get. When competition gets more serious than that, people pick up the real weapons and get "real serious", right? That's why I agree to disagree with your interpretation of this game or games in general. User friendliness and a general attitude to take it easy is the same as respect for others. A player to me never lacks some magical "imagination"; just experience and exposure to correct information. And without the players with less experience, who will educate and play the "pros" and buy the game? That said, I know you're casual too: if you were totally "serious/pro" you wouldn't be in a community forum sharing tips, which shows a good/respectful player's attitude, so I see that you understand what I'm saying. It's OK to disagree. Folks like me however are immune to arguments that appeal to skill, name, reputation, or some simplifying notion of "best xyz" and will ask questions. If what you say is true about disabling Gp spit combo, then the developer should have shared that with all parts of the community fast enough so that we could take a more active role in defending it. Here again, there could be more beneficial communication between all instead of dumbing things down because everybody just listens to themselves instead of figuring out what's going on.
  12. This assumes that alleged non-pro players cannot discuss their opinions and share their points of view concerning a game mode for lack of experience. And that is the topic of this thread: is 1v1 dead bearing in mind the vastly different experience and playing styles that folks have. This state-of-affairs is user unfriendly to most. Following that reasoning is another version of "let's have a serious competition to see who has the longest... uhm mouse cable." That's another topic and if somebody wants to organize competitions and really, really, really determine who is the best in some format where players prove consistently, over hundreds of matches, who has the... "longest, biggest, fatest mouse cable" under controlled, arbitrated, standardized non-lag, no bug circumstances... Then those people should organize those competitions, play among themselves and folks wish them happiness, if they even care. This narrative leads to same lame elitism as everywhere else: what happens when folks believe in the best? Little exclusive groups of princesses form that exclude others from play and fun. People can have higher standards than that, understanding that whoever is "best", if we must use this crude description, has a larger community interest than extending some dominance: If they play with positive attitude, treat others as good folks no matter their skills, then it's enough as they use their luck/ability to enlarge and detoxify the community from being in some idiotic competition with itself, confusing the game with reality; instead they enlarge the player base with positive attitude, good vibes, and motivate beginners to get better and not let a simple difference in experience/luck isolate them into groups of princesses. In short: if some elite shares the knowledge and advantage, people will respect them for being real people and not playing princess groups and hogging advantages and "best stickers and toys" like children in school. That respect will be based on real sportsmanship AND grow the player base along with the recognition that those players seek for the hours and effort they put in. Naturally. User friendliness was brought up by CartierC and Sanlucifer, which exposes a question for any playing community. A community calling itself a community while sidelining less skilled/experienced players and their concerns is perhaps less a community and more a band of merry princesses that want to play alone forever against other lonely princesses. And this feels unhealthy because it is... and there are better ways and players out there: to me honest, simple types, that greet and play respectfully, regardless of what I feel to be their skills, are a better use of my time than lost princesses trying to prove their cable to be so long they forget themselves, forget to laugh/have fun, forget the community, and forget that they once were beginners that benefited off other people being cool enough to show them the game, tricks, strategy etc. You can't relate nuances of play through on screen hints and indeed a lot of that stuff is on youtube. Share the links if you feel so inclined. But user friendliness at some point, and the death or life of 1v1 and this game mode in general, is also tied to the attitudes of those that play. End rant mode.
  13. Of course it depends who you're playing and how many hours each side has sunk into the game mode. So indeed, a hunter can seem incredibly dominant in 1v1, particularly if they're using their spits well, and here the game can be less than gentle with folks just starting out. There were patches where casual survivors who didn't play thousands of hours could pose an advanced hunter at least some problems, virtue of being a group. But ever since the game mode moved from being a fun distraction to become an increasingly competitive multiplayer affair, with all of us obsessing on balance, user friendliness was increasingly swept under the rug and those survivors are now seen as having been "OP". I've mentioned user friendliness towards beginners several times to no avail, even if some suggestions from these pages are escalated to a level where they at times do influence the next patch. Apparently the cult following will last forever with infinite beginners flocking to the game. And holistic approaches where both hunters and survivors are incentivized to play and act as a community are absent. With the potential we see the game mode to have on special weekends, I don't see why folks aren't interested to go "Dying Light Total Nightmare": full deal, minimal cool downs on grapple hook and spits, sickest, fastest movement, huge drop kick range etc. I think you get the picture. Make it insane and fun, while leaving folks the option of playing the "balanced version", then we'd see what people decide to play. As far as survivor tips: survivors are their own worst enemies. Move less predictably, try to exert initiative when the hunter engages, always have some escape available + have a two handed weapon ready when you see they're throwing the kitchen sink at you while leaving you no other choice. Take the hit but force them to take one too. Do not give away the initiative, avoid taking routes to other nests that overly expose or trap you and play some hunter. Get the other side of the story as it will help model what the other side is doing/thinking giving you better odds at beating them to the punch time wise. But with the kinds of patch changes of late, it'll become increasingly difficult to say much about general principles of the thing. With less tactics for the hunter to break up humans and the repeated nerfing of both hunter and human abilities for competitive reasons, as I mentioned concerning GP spit combo in other threads, the game increasingly resembles an awkward sort of tag game. Still had fun today, although the folks I tend to play with regularly as well as yours truly, play less.
  14. Yeah, also heard that Gp + Spit was suddenly judged to be an exploit and indeed, if that's correct a whole range of simultaneous commands would now have to be removed from the game for consistency to be achieved. I don't see it, as fun always beats stats/arguments for me. But the tendency to keep nerfing feels like the game mode is worse than a few patches ago, regardless of which side you prefer to play. Both survivor and hunter are shadows of what they once were and even if the stats or alleged pro players are happy, it makes for more constrained, less fluid, more predictable play that is less fun. If a game developer interprets what are essentially first principles of their game as an "exploit", then they run the risk of abandoning what distinguishes their game and makes it special. I cite from the Wiki and tips of playing Be The Zombie: "Be both liberal and conservative about the use of spits. don't just let charged ones sit around doing nothing, but also do not just spit every time a human is within sight; instead wait for an easy shot, like when one is climbing, after a tackle or ground pound, when one is charging you, or while they are distracted with nests/zombies." This was a main mechanism of the game mode and one of the means of having a chance to split up survivors. Therefore there is larger strategic justification for this tactic, which imho overrules its exploit like character: getting survivors to panic because of horde is part of the essence of the game mode, as well as the mechanism that can turn a game suddenly, and the wiki is correct in listing it as a fundamental means to deliver spit. To see if something constitutes an exploit, it doesn't suffice to appeal to some authority, dev, or statistic and state: "Well, XYZ said it was an exploit so it must be wrong." That is not an argument. To see if some mechanism, move, or ability grants an unfair advantage relative to some game, it serves to observe what happens given correct play by all sides, in our case: Hunter predicts location of survivor correctly, gets in his ground pound, and sticks him with horde. With correct play, the human will react accordingly: with UV Lamp and 2 handed weapon, he'll see to it that the hunter won't be able to return for a pounce and in the majority of cases secure a safe rooftop. Correct play and successful hits by both sides essentially lead to a drawn outcome. You have to assume the survivor to be a beginner/ignorant if you want to otherwise force this mechanism to be interpreted as an exploit.
  15. It could be called "Champions League: Worst Patch Ever- Games", with grandiose choir driven orchestral intros and fancy graphics, where the winners are rigged to be the non-participants that refuse to play. They would each get a lunchbox if they've made ultimate survivor, or a spinner for those who've made Apex, surviving the summer patch of 2017. Or you have the elite players rounded up ready to play "Oh no, not another patch!", where in every round some awesome, fun ability (which the audience sees but the players have to "learn by doing") gets nerfed and the audience gets to see game play and the genuine effect of a patch change on living humans that once enjoyed the game. Jokes aside, it is fascinating how quickly people turn from criticizing to "wow yum, let's have competitions etc". Especially since the weekend events and the patch changes point towards one fact: the game mode can be enjoyed in a variety of ways. Give folks a choice and they will flock to the best settings but rule via "executive order of the patch", and players have no choice. Even if they pretend to themselves that they do: E.g. some player insists on serious play, but finally will play - no matter the settings they themselves complain about - then it becomes clear that that choice isn't real and that the criticism is perhaps not too reliable either. I lean towards those that saw issues with the last patch + those that seek more control over the game mode, and wish everybody that does want to compete and/or play casually one thing: not another patch change because by now you know what that can mean.