Chickeninja

Members
  • Content Count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Chickeninja reacted to herotina in Post Any Btz Bugs/exploits Here   
    Bug: Drop some Mine and shot it to kill nest fast. 
     

    * And more players never up to max HP Level (275), because it's can auto heal (don't need use Medkit).
    They have only 100hp but damage of Hunter will auto scale (claw, tackle, ground pound...) 
    * Some Human use this trick: use medkit before fight with Hunter, it's help they can auto-heal when take a hit (in animation of tackle, gp, claw...)
    Exam: In this video, Hunter hit human with 4-5 times, but human don't lost anymore (HP auto recovery)

    Please fix: If human in animations of hit (down, fall, knockback...), auto heal will stop, like Campain Mode (hit of Goon, Demolisher...)
  2. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from Deadeye195 in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    Gaming improving decision making and problem solving? That seems to only hold in the narrow sense of the game itself because it doesn’t appear to be as true as the gaming public would like to believe, i.e. you won’t learn how to smoothen social moves, drive better, perform surgery better, or make better decisions generally in the world by say becoming an experienced tactics specialist of Be the Zombie. I don’t see the evidence but since I don’t read everything, perhaps EM could enlighten us and point towards the science that establishes that.
    Nerves of steel? Lol, with all these benefits from better decision making, to better problem solving, AND growing uber balls it sounds like we could substitute military training and education with playing Be the Zombie. It’s cheaper and we get the same or better results.
    The problem with specialist arguments: just play a few more hundred or thousand hours and you’ll see what we mean. And that’s perfectly legitimate as far as opinions go, but falls flat when considering everyday facts: doing anything for a few hundred hours will make a person feel like they’re learning something, overcoming something, or conquering fear “practicing steel nerves”, training reflexes etc. But whether this is true for people's lives and in which sense they truly benefit? That seems much more unclear: how can you distinguish a time wasting activity from a bad game that keeps requiring you to spend more and more hours to "get it"?
    You could say the same about any other game or activity, even unpleasant ones that aren't fun. What makes a quality game world class and distinguishes it imho, is that you don’t have to earn a degree and spend hundreds of hours to learn what normal play is like and people still feel empowered in their choices and excited to play. Good game implies that genuine fun can be had easily. Hundreds of hours means that this is a specialist’s game mode and that balance decisions are made to benefit the highest level of play, while the rest have to bite a learning curve harsher than the early players, that tell everybody to grow some, when that's always easy for us to say because we were around the longest.
    And in the case of Starcraft etc. this is fine but Techland’s position remains clear regarding the question: Is the game mode only for PvP specialists (that have the freedom to play for hours daily) or is it for the general public to enjoy casually? And the balancing updates have swung BOTH ways, which nourishes false expectations that try to please everybody with neither specialists or beginners satisfied. Techland has repeatedly stated that they want to cater both to veterans’ as well as to casual expectations. But who knows what route they'll take in the end?
  3. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to Marc Andris in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    I’ve played this game since the beginning and in my humble opinion, this was a horrible move! I get what ur trying but it’s so lopsided for the Hunter that it’s almost unplayable! My friends who play hunters laugh because they know it’s so one-sided now. Insult to injury, many many ppl quit playing this game because of this change. As a loyal everyday player, I hope you reconsider changing back to the original! Nerfing the Human does nothing but piss players off!!! I have many additional comments but don’t want to sound like a whiner...just looking out for the best interest of this great game, so more ppl don’t leave & hopefully, word will get out and the players that left for other games will come back. Thank you 
  4. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to Deadeye195 in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    I agree we all have our on style. We play what is fun. That's what we play for. Ya I like a challenge but I also had fun being able to rain death on a hunter but now it is almost impossible. I just want some of the grab distance back. As far as tje other buffs i can handle them. They do tend to overwhelm you with spits sometimes. 
  5. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to Survivor in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    I just want to say that regardless of who you are/how long you've played, you have no more right to an opinion about the game as someone who has played it for 10 minutes. About you saying I'm a "random player", neither of us have to prove anything, but I've beaten most, if not all the top tier PS4 hunter players... with just my fists. I've been playing the game since launch and shortly after its release is when I started to use just my fists. So before you de-mind me because of my loadout - or lack thereof - remind yourself that this is a video game which has had thousands of players, all at different skills and all with their own styles. If there was only one way to play any game, nobody would play video games because they would be stale and boring. I sincerely hope you can have an open mind about that and trust me when I say that I am a great player - using only fists. I appreciate your advice about playing, however I'm aware of all this and it needn't be said. We're all just here to have some fun but I feel as if there is no fun in being blatantly overpowered. As I've said a couple times now, my suggestions are not all meant to be implemented at once. Yes, I feel a couple are necessary, but for even one of the others to be added, that would just be a bonus.
    as for the exploits I've spoken of, there's many. To name a few; tackling and pounces through objects, making them impossible to evade. Landing behind a survivor with tendrils to tackle them instantly from the back without the ability to be evaded. The ability to charge up a ground pound while using tendrils. Being able to tackle a survivor from a higher surface, glitching out the screen of the survivor and confusing them. Pouncing a survivor from close range to have the "flash radius" of the hunter be moved to a random location somewhere around the survivor, making it impossible to evade. Being able to tackle while running perpendicular to a survivor, making the hunters animation glitch out, having him not even be facing you, hitting you with the side of his body
    These are most, but certainly not all the exploits/glitches alike that I see every time I'm playing a higher ranked hunter. Excuse me if some of them are intended, but if that's the case, they should be worked on to smooth them out, so it's not so rigid and broken looking. 
  6. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to Hank J. Wimbleton in BTZ Update 1/12/18 too overpowered!! Please read Techland   
    Even I somewhat agree with you here. I thought that this patch at first was a good game changer to balance things out. As time went on however many of us realized that some things in this patch were too much, and did kind of went off negatively in what I said.
    I can understand if someone dislikes this patch, but at least have some decency to actually explain with details as to why its unbalanced rather than the obligatory, biased "HUNTER/HUMAN OP PLZ NERF, THIS SUCKS" stuff which barely outlines any reasons to their argument. In the case of this thread, this person is willing to use a game breaking patch in order to bypass the current version to their own liking.
    Now I don't care if someone cheats in single-player, I don't care if someone wants to do this glitch in single-player, I don't care if someone download mods, scripts, or use an auto-crossbow in single-player. I do care when all of this is being used for PVP/BTZ. When you play with this kind of stuff by yourself, or with friends than that's fine. In single-player you can do anything as you please, but when you take all the cheats, glitches, and scripted items to Multiplayer it creates an unbalanced and unfair playing field.. Its not fair that many players who played from the very beginning up to the current version get the short of the stick when some random cheater joins in, and screws them over, and the next one over. Its not fair that people use glitches that have next to no counter for an easy, and unfair win. Many of us care about this game, and to see it succeed even further, but when we see stuff like this it makes the game look very bad.
    I can understand if someone has no desire to become the god of Dying Light, and just want to play, and have fun. That is fine. I even like your idea of setting custom settings so that people can play with whatever they like as it adds more diversity, and fun similar to Super Smash Bros. where people can play with Fox only, no items, Final Destination, or play with items, and mess around.
    However, you can't say that bringing a cheat engine, or scripted items to the areas of Multiplayer is fair for "their experience" cause its not. This player right here, despite his frustrations, is choosing the cheap route, and glitch the game to his liking. Yes lets all go back to Day One of The Following where Semi-auto shotguns can 3 shot a Hunter at an insane range, and where we can one shot nests. Lets go back to having the Shield glitch where it deflects stuck spits, and tackle hits like a melee weapon. Let us all have to run cheat engines to run super fast and avoid Hunter spits. This isn't the way to fix things. Instead what this person should've done is discussed his issues with details as to why he dislikes it like how most of us have been doing in the thread above.
    In regards to cheating being addressed why don't we as players continue to mention it. It was talked about before, but then was suddenly dropped, and somewhat forgotten as an issue here when it shouldn't be. Bad Blood is going to come, and you can bet that there are going to be cheaters, and we should be voicing our concerns with cheating loudly, and continuously. "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" This can't be any more true.
  7. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from Soulborn141 in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    That’s just it though: you needed a few weeks of intensive play to arrive at that conclusion. That doesn’t mean the update was good. It just means you got used to it.  
    A successful pounce requires a level of true skill? Post update I observed a higher number of undeserved gotcha pounces by my hunter. Also tactically, you’re describing a scenario where the hunter takes the bait and complaining that they get punished for it.
    As for the survivor types milking this tactic: There are other, more measured ways to discourage camping from giving folks an edge strategically. Note that camping itself is a symptom of poor game design: folks feel they don’t have options with which to engage hunters, so they camp.
    Equally important to all the balancing arguments is that the game is fun to play. And drop attack was one of the most fun mechanisms for a reason: survivor makes a sound prediction about hunter’s heading and position and is rewarded with insta kill. To me it doesn’t matter if this happens from the height of a cardboard box: if the hunter’s moves are that transparent, then sparing them those kills won’t make a difference.
    The fact that so much emphasis is placed on the necessary learning curves for survivors, while there is zero discussion on the merits of challenges/learning curves for hunters is revealing. I’ll point out the obvious again: This kind of reasoning pretends to value balance while really seeking overpowered hunters (For everybody howling “You seek an overpowered survivor”; see my previous posts, I’ve been defending what I interpret to be appropriate buffs and nerfs on both sides well before stuck spits could be negated by survivor shield use, which needed to be reigned in for example).
    With the latest update, the following scenario is common: a hunter picking a predictable route and the survivor’s drop attack just being off by the width of a hair results in the same kind of game play: inaccuracy of hunter rewarded and survivor nerf is equivalent to removing drop attack as an option for survivors, given that survivors feel only a fraction of their attacks to be effective when compared to before the update. Double standard. The net effect over time is that folks will stop trying to use what is arguably one of the funnest survivor mechanisms of the game.
    Indeed, if great = leaving survivors in many situations without viable options, then indeed they've "Made Dying Light great again". But as you've noted, it took a couple of weeks for that greatness to sink in, which indicates the kind of change that makes the game harder to learn and less fun to play; and while EXACTLY THIS may be the kind of fun appropriate to competitive play styles and huge frequencies/hours sunk into the game, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of folks seek a good time online and are neither interested nor impressed by the kinds of play styles that seek some warped sense of skill only to lord it over others online.
    Ok, then share with us the exact criteria to make the distinction between imbalanced, poorly designed games, and the kind of game play situations that require "get better and deal with it". I believe that's a personal thing and that people should not play games that aren't fun. By valuing challenge in itself, I should play infinite games against supercomputers that I can't win because it would be more challenging. And by the same measure, if humans are overpowered then hunters should enjoy the challenge of winning 1 game in a thousand against weaker playing survivors.
    "C'mon you whiners, where's you're sense of adventure?" works both ways but is also an admission that the game's quality is so poor, you need hundreds of hours to realize it. Therefore, bad patch for the community as a whole, even if excellent patch for us.
  8. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from Hank J. Wimbleton in BTZ Update 1/12/18 too overpowered!! Please read Techland   
    I'm not sure it is this simple. It's not that I disagree completely with you, it's just I can also relate  to peoples' frustration.
    The last patch we were told: "This is the fairest patch ever!" and "statistics can't lie!", variants of which have made the rounds since the game's release. But with so many folks able to mod the game to their liking, cheating never being addressed, and so much variety in people's play styles it becomes natural to ask: Why not let everybody play the update they want with the settings they choose? After all, people will do so anyway, cheating in many cases for some earlier ability (or just to not have to craft medkits, potions etc.), and their reason may not always be glorification of their skills or maximization of wins.
    Assume somebody takes the advice of some of the cheerleaders who'll play through any patch, no matter what is changed, and decides to equip shields, adapt their play style yet again to the current patch, the question concerning preferences is still legitimate: that person bought the game where they could choose between use of shield or not. So following the advice gives them a poorer, more limited/reduced experience of a game they purchased. Some people, yours truly included, value consistency of the experience along with options. I therefore relate to peoples' frustration: they return to a game finding that it isn't the game they paid for.
    You purchase a game in a certain state of development and perhaps you valued the play style encouraged by some early patch. Maybe you just want to explore some earlier version. If the game/game mode belongs -at least to some degree to the buyer and player of said game- why can't they play the game the way they bought it? Or the way they got used to it, or the way they've come to prefer it? Why are they "lesser players/unskilled cheaters" for their personal preferences, no matter how uninformed/inexperienced those preferences happen to be? Similarly to having no control over whether survivors choose to host on normal difficulty vs. those who do on Nightmare, I used to think: "wow, how lame, they're playing normal difficulty." Now I see that that was just me pushing others to accept my preferences.
    And if those preferences were visible to others, so we'd have more cards on the table up front b4 win/loose/forfeit, then people could be more willing to play overpowered AND inexperienced hunters or survivors: because both sides would have a clearer idea of what they're getting into, both sides would be in a more informed position to accept or decline games. The Host will have certain settings and Hunter would invade with certain abilities and there's either handshake or decline, much like people browse each others' profiles b4 doing so these days anyway but with more info on the types of games/preferences others prefer.
    Give folks more control and transparency and they'll balance the game via their preferences. Keep mucking with the core of the game while losing consistency of the gaming experience and playing style options, forcing everybody to accept one variant/play style/interpretation of the game, at every update/patch? That not only tries to impossibly please everybody... that's trying to please everybody over all times/updates, which is even more... uhm impossible.
  9. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from Soulborn141 in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    That’s just it though: you needed a few weeks of intensive play to arrive at that conclusion. That doesn’t mean the update was good. It just means you got used to it.  
    A successful pounce requires a level of true skill? Post update I observed a higher number of undeserved gotcha pounces by my hunter. Also tactically, you’re describing a scenario where the hunter takes the bait and complaining that they get punished for it.
    As for the survivor types milking this tactic: There are other, more measured ways to discourage camping from giving folks an edge strategically. Note that camping itself is a symptom of poor game design: folks feel they don’t have options with which to engage hunters, so they camp.
    Equally important to all the balancing arguments is that the game is fun to play. And drop attack was one of the most fun mechanisms for a reason: survivor makes a sound prediction about hunter’s heading and position and is rewarded with insta kill. To me it doesn’t matter if this happens from the height of a cardboard box: if the hunter’s moves are that transparent, then sparing them those kills won’t make a difference.
    The fact that so much emphasis is placed on the necessary learning curves for survivors, while there is zero discussion on the merits of challenges/learning curves for hunters is revealing. I’ll point out the obvious again: This kind of reasoning pretends to value balance while really seeking overpowered hunters (For everybody howling “You seek an overpowered survivor”; see my previous posts, I’ve been defending what I interpret to be appropriate buffs and nerfs on both sides well before stuck spits could be negated by survivor shield use, which needed to be reigned in for example).
    With the latest update, the following scenario is common: a hunter picking a predictable route and the survivor’s drop attack just being off by the width of a hair results in the same kind of game play: inaccuracy of hunter rewarded and survivor nerf is equivalent to removing drop attack as an option for survivors, given that survivors feel only a fraction of their attacks to be effective when compared to before the update. Double standard. The net effect over time is that folks will stop trying to use what is arguably one of the funnest survivor mechanisms of the game.
    Indeed, if great = leaving survivors in many situations without viable options, then indeed they've "Made Dying Light great again". But as you've noted, it took a couple of weeks for that greatness to sink in, which indicates the kind of change that makes the game harder to learn and less fun to play; and while EXACTLY THIS may be the kind of fun appropriate to competitive play styles and huge frequencies/hours sunk into the game, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of folks seek a good time online and are neither interested nor impressed by the kinds of play styles that seek some warped sense of skill only to lord it over others online.
    Ok, then share with us the exact criteria to make the distinction between imbalanced, poorly designed games, and the kind of game play situations that require "get better and deal with it". I believe that's a personal thing and that people should not play games that aren't fun. By valuing challenge in itself, I should play infinite games against supercomputers that I can't win because it would be more challenging. And by the same measure, if humans are overpowered then hunters should enjoy the challenge of winning 1 game in a thousand against weaker playing survivors.
    "C'mon you whiners, where's you're sense of adventure?" works both ways but is also an admission that the game's quality is so poor, you need hundreds of hours to realize it. Therefore, bad patch for the community as a whole, even if excellent patch for us.
  10. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to Hank J. Wimbleton in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    Some things I agree with you with, some I don't.
    It is human instinct to win as that is pretty much the point of any objective based gamemode. So dirty tricks or tactics that are common should be expect and be played around. I'll be honest when this update was up I was happy as its not a curbstomp when a Hunter is a fighting a Human and loses, yet as time went on we then realized how strong of an update this was towards Hunter. It is very unbalanced. Spits are too easy to uses for low skilled players, and the high skilled players know how to abuse them to the point where you can barely do anything about it. The only way to pretty much be a Hunter is playing in a 2v1 so that the effects of 3v1 and 4v1 are not there. 1v1 is a mess because if you're hit by UV Spit its pretty much a guaranteed death with no way to counter. 3v1 and 4v1 is just way to chaotic as they are spits left and right with barely any safe openings to even engage the Hunter, and on top of the fact that he regenerates spits and shield like no tomorrow makes it even more difficult cause he can just heal back up, run away, or lock you place with the animation of pouncing, or tackle.
    There is a reason spits have only two charges (depending on which you use), these things are very dangerous as losing you UV Light, or having insta kill bombers appear from the from the map, from the ground, or even goddamn, unfairly teleport to you. These spits before were hard to aim, and I'll admit it was rather disappointing to see a new player miss 24/7 and not learn how to aim, or use them; but with the auto-balance mechanic and with this update it makes it that something that is this dangerous is now easy to use for all skill levels of players. We might as well go back to spamming flares again for this kind of chupacabra.
    The Shield still does work, but its just bad to use in general. It leaves you open for tackles, GPs, and pounces since the shield can't block them; even if someone manages to block the spit they have to wait out its animation which leaves you unable to do anything (i.e. switch weapons, equipment, move around, etc).
    Some people are don't have that much experience, and are of course whining, but there are others here who have spent the time and effort into this game which we enjoy, and put our opinions not for whining, but to help make this game balance overall. Stats are also important because it allows us to see many variables with this game. Unfortunately we have no way to see who does what with anything, only Techland knows.
    I think this video helps alot with this stuff, and it is a different game, but the same concept should apply:
     
  11. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from Soulborn141 in Be The Zombie Balancing Update - 12/1/2018   
    What an informative thread. Great to hear that people are having fun with the changes in new ways.
    I say this without irony: people should post videos of these games where they enjoy playing as the challenged survivor against.... what? The kind of casual players folks make fun of? How is this not a surprise? It appears that when many folks say they want balance, they mean they want an overpowered night hunter, which is the opposite of any conception of "challenge" that I am familiar with.
    So why did we reign in GP spit combo (obviously overpowered) only to increase spit radius and blast to this extent? This seems to bias the game more towards spamming spits indiscriminately. I'm not sure why this is a better state of affairs than permitting the spit combo. At first glance, the play is even more transparent and predictable: hunter engages with spits and shield and will be rewarded disproportionately for less accuracy. And I say this as somebody who thinks the damage modifications to hunter seemed fair and measured.
    Increasingly the balance discussions in general -in many games- seem a fine a way to keep people hooked and engaged with sub optimally tuned games while skimping on testing to milk community feedback. That's why I won't get into details anymore and state only the obvious: the amount of work, precision, and effort a hunter has to invest to win isn't equal to what is expected of survivors.
    As to all the positive testimonials: I'm happy for everybody but would offer some perspective on all the love... for some of us do realize that we wouldn't be in a place where our hunters feel a new dawn emerging if the game were balanced. And if we're happy today the only thing this guarantees, is that come next patch...
     
  12. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from CartierC in 2 Hunters   
    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. 
  13. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from CartierC in 2 Hunters   
    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. 
  14. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from BladeMaster in Should Instant Tackle be brought back?   
    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.
  15. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to Relentlos in Be the Zombie New Abilities/ BUFF Ideas   
    That UV block idea would be good, and it comes at a cost. If it ended in the human death then people would complain but if it just prevented the lock in from working then it would be useful in 4v1 encounters. May even result in human fall deaths if they attempted the DFA from too high up. 
    I also wonder why a hunter can't claw a propane tank or GP a barrel resulting in a self death but possibly taking humans with him as well. Not sure if that would be chaos or not but I thought about it. 
  16. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from boOya in 1v1 is it dead? Discussion.   
    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.
  17. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from boOya in 1v1 is it dead? Discussion.   
    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.   
  18. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to zankthetank111 in 1v1 is it dead? Discussion.   
    So to comment on the thread title and give my observations as a player who beat campaign recently but new to BTZ as a survivor.  I could care less about rank nor could care about others spamming tactics personally.  I casually enjoy playing and Dying Light is my favorite.  What I have learned with BTZ (1v1 survivor) is this.  You will die.  You will die a lot.  At least initially.  So what.  Use that to learn, not rage quit and/or give up on this mode.  Each hunter has a unique play style (as well as survivor) and each hunter has different abilities - so do you as the survivor.  You are forced to learn more than just what the campaign mode offers the first time through - you have to be able to split second switch your inventory depending on the situation, master all the tactical movements, interleaving flares/uv, shield, dodge, grenades, etc.  Everything is counterable in some way.  If someone is spamming a movement, you grind it out to find how to counter it.  But yes, its really hard which is why it is exhilarating, and you become an even better player over time.  I thought that the NH was way OP for 1v1, and it is only if you qualify it with the fact that most are untrained for this style of game play initially.  
    Bottom-line for me is that I am newer to this mode and understand the difficulty for others.  I spent many hours reading online and researching if it was worth my time to try and compete because things were "unbalanced" or I was always paired with some mid-to-upper ranking NH.  But its actually quite simple, you have to master what you have, and master the "chess board" by not giving up the initiative.   If you lose, its because you still have work to do.  
    But yes, 1v1 is my primary way of playing BTZ as a survivor and the challenge for me is like crack (I guess)   I appreciate it, but If I was a rank chaser and not out to just have fun and appreciate a good solid battle, I probably would have given up or gone to another way of playing (non 1v1).  
  19. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from CartierC in 1v1 is it dead? Discussion.   
    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.
  20. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to EMtriX in To Pete And Techland, No Damage Scaling In 3,4V1 Mode   
    Counter Strike is over 10 years old and millions are playing it so .... good call sir xd. By the way, companies love people like you, they are releasing game, then they are spoiling it by weird balance decisions and people like you are "oh, nothing happened, les's wait for another game". But many players dont need another game, this game would be good, but techland intentionally is forcing us to drop it and wait for another. I am pissed because i havent played for months and i just wanted to play as a hunter, and i cant because i am getting one shotted with crossbow even in 4v1 mode. How people can defend this. If more people would post rant posts like me sth would change, but because of people like you we are not taken seriously. Sorry, but it is the way i described it. 
  21. Downvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from Vallon in This Is Example For My Idea   
    Good post plus nice video. Thanks for posting.
     
    The level of play, particularly on survivor side, is above average though; these are experienced players playing together + we don't really know when the video was produced. There might already have been modifications through patches that address your concerns, such as molotov, bow, crossbow etc. because this is "an older vid" via the description. All I can tell immediately is that video is produced "post crossbow".
     
    And because these are all experienced guys, it is difficult to see how they've tweaked their playing styles to essentially do good teamwork WHILE AT SAME TIME deploying high number of high risk moves, such as exploding arrows and super molotovs. In the hands of normal survivors, using all these items together would get them killed. Everybody can check for themselves how easily super molotovs or exploding arrows can knock over or kill fellow survivors, which is a sign that the devs do care about survivors spamming those items carelessly. Watch your health bar when you expose yourself to a friends super molotov. Damage from friendly fire is so high/fast, that I've seen survivors start fights because some people use those items while others hate being damaged by them!
     
    The hunter also doesn't seem to get in many successful tackles, which makes me doubt a little whether the two sides are appropriately matched. And while many believe that only high level of play videos should be posted, this is a great example of how that kind of play will tend to confuse viewers without the experience: as you say, those survivors are OP, and I agree that it can look like item damage problem. But imho it's less the items and more the general level of experience + Hunter not using his resources to fullest extent, that make it look that way. And while there are a lot of things that need more care/fixing/testing in this mode, I'm not sure it's about damage of Molotovs, arrows etc.
  22. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to EMtriX in How Is This Done?   
    hey chickenninja, to do this glitched tackle which shouldn't be in the game you have to initiate first tackle, after first missed tackle dont let go the tackle button, hold it, dont move and turn around, just dont move after missed tackle in any direction !!!, hunter will do another automatically from standstill. Additional effect of this glitched tackle is 50% damage reduction. Some players are keeping this "secret" technique for themselves  because they want to have unfair advantage against other players so they can feel powerful... Some pepole argue that it is fair because it is in the game but blocking spits with shield also was in the game and was patched because at that time devs care about palyers, now they dont give a damn.
  23. Upvote
    Chickeninja reacted to nickmad92 in How Is This Done?   
    Jeez if shield had stayed I would have left a long time ago..I was worried reporting the grapple cancel airjump here would mean everyone would use it. But I was wrong, only a few tools like to indulge..
     
    I don't know why Vallon should fear other players adopting this move if he let's his friends in on the other exploits around. I don't like playing his crowd as they ALL use these nasty tactics. Then claim cause it's possible that's it's okay. Anything is possible but that doesn't make it right, especially for a game most consider to be competitive in nature. It's funny cause Techland like to put it out there that they care about their fanbase. If they were here asking the Vets what's needed and wanted then I would imagine the next multiplayer to be legendary.
     
    But to me I feel BtZ/multiplayer was made just to encourage users/existing players to get their friends to also buy the game. But I don't think many like to play alone against 4 other people who talk trash and flash lights in your face. Especially with survivors being Godlike with infinite stamina the ability to heal instantly always and can cloak better than hunter! Nvm dfa, poison bolt and 2 handed.
     
    Good for you emtrix for not being a typical survivor. Respect.
  24. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from RaceyStorm3124 in Too Many Spamming Night Hunters   
    Even if Nuclearwolf's question is not posed to your satisfaction or isn't fair, I see no reason to throw this level of negativity around. And I say this as somebody who believes in self-defense in the absence of mods in most online situations. All that is needed, is to point out that the spam idea does not make much sense in context of this competitive multiplayer game mode, as its high reliance on tactics and live combat imply spamming moves on both sides. Can we blame a survivor for spamming melee attacks?
     
    Sure, such questions make little sense to people more familiar with the game mode but to suggest that the person asking a question should get a grip, is a troll, or insanely stupid is a bit heavy handed imho. Asking questions and giving feedback is what forums are for. Somehow fostering negativity with our "answers" is perhaps worse than posing invalid questions, as nobody needs extra negativity.    
  25. Upvote
    Chickeninja got a reaction from RaceyStorm3124 in Too Many Spamming Night Hunters   
    Even if Nuclearwolf's question is not posed to your satisfaction or isn't fair, I see no reason to throw this level of negativity around. And I say this as somebody who believes in self-defense in the absence of mods in most online situations. All that is needed, is to point out that the spam idea does not make much sense in context of this competitive multiplayer game mode, as its high reliance on tactics and live combat imply spamming moves on both sides. Can we blame a survivor for spamming melee attacks?
     
    Sure, such questions make little sense to people more familiar with the game mode but to suggest that the person asking a question should get a grip, is a troll, or insanely stupid is a bit heavy handed imho. Asking questions and giving feedback is what forums are for. Somehow fostering negativity with our "answers" is perhaps worse than posing invalid questions, as nobody needs extra negativity.