• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tommy86

Recent Profile Visitors

209 profile views
  1. "Circling around through windows in not an intended part of the game? Okay, you must be joking. What is fair is fair, and this is so integral to gameplay there can;t really be anything done about it. I agree, there's nothing more to be said about it, but it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. It is a moot point with no real significance in the argument. People run in circles...big deal. Some Jasons suck and can't deal with it. What you gonna do? Nothing" Looping is not an intended part of the game. Do your research, this is common knowledge around here. Breakable windows were made to stop exactly this tactic. Breakable fences were made to stop another form of it. You must be joking when you say it's integral to the game. Much of it has already been wiped out. I'm over talking about this, won't reply to any more of it. "Because people do stupid things because videogames are videogames. Thus, yet again, I reinforce my point. Take away all the incentives you can, add all the possible punishments, it's still going to happen." That's your argument? That people kill for an escape objective because of stupidity? The right answer is because players are willing to survive the match at all cost. If the goal of the game was to farm exp, then your argument would be valid. But it's not, and the basic concept of win/lose is more important than whatever points you can gain. Never mind that at a decent level, with decent perks, points are just about useless. "Actually that's not true. You can be banned for both. Matter of fact, player shave been banned, only on PC, for using the car to block the cabin. Exploits that completely break the game are all on the bannable offense list." Fair enough, if this is the case I am glad to be wrong. "Yeah, that's the thing though, you're complaining about surviving until the end of the match- not complaining about glitching.. Now you're just side stepping your own argument. And looping is a completely fair tactic." How am I complaining about players surviving to the end of the match? Again you are reading this all wrong. It's not about players surviving, it's how they survive. I have said before, it is a broad topic and many things would be affected by this change. I was addressing some of the common issues that had been brought up since release at that time. Map glitching was the main one, gameplay issues were secondary. This thread is almost 3 weeks old and there are entirely different things being regularly discussed now. I didn't revive it, I was only replying to it. Glitching has been resolved to a large degree now, but I feel this idea still has merit, not only as a way of helping to future-proof for it but also to encourage better gameplay. I always said it would take more than this solution to stop griefers. But on the whole I felt it would be a good start in discouraging the player base from exploiting this condition of the game, other than just relying on people reporting each other to maintain balance. Ideally, the game would be designed in such a way that it could maintain balance on its own. That was the core idea.
  2. Just going to paste what you've written, since it's far too difficult on mobile to quote properly. "A. Then why do you care" How about the fairness of the game? Or removing an unintended and cheap tactic? You seem to think that because you can deal with it so well then it's not an issue for others. Again, other instances of it have already been fixed, I recall Wes even posted a thread on it. It's clear that it's not meant to be a part of the game. I likewise would like to stop discussing it, it is but one part of the topic and I never particularly highlighted it to begin with. I've simply been trying to explain to you why it matters, even if it doesn't to you. I really have nothing more to say on it. "And no, I would say most people don't care about winning or losing if the result is the same. If the idiots were rewards with acceptance letters to the same colleges I was, I would have tried a lot less hard." "In my opinion, this design flaw is no different than a glitch so I didn't think I needed to spell it out for someone so anal. So forgive me: an exploiter gonna exploit. Because my god, taking advantage of glitches and design flaws is so different! Right?" Putting these together because you appear to have difficulty grasping these concepts. First of all, your example for winning is totally out of place. I won't repeat myself but I will add some food for thought. Why would a player kill another for an escape objective knowing full well they lose 1000 xp? Onto the design flaw vs the glitch. It's not a matter of me being anal at all. You've simply missed the context. In this game, you can be banned for map glitching, but you can't be banned for the other. Why? By map glitching, you are literally breaking the game environment. The scenario I gave with a car blocking off a cabin, that is technically allowed. Though it is a completely broken tactic, it isn't a bug, the design simply didn't account for that scenario. "I don't remember calling the exploitation of glitches and design flaws as fair?" I'm not going to go backtrack on this one, but let's just put it down it down to misinterpretation on my behalf. And I was going to leave this out but... "You have a problem reading or you just like putting words in people's mouths? You know that's called rape right?" What? "But I do think surviving to the end of the match should be something that is rewarded. And regardless of how much incentive there is right now, people are gonna try to survive until the end of the match because it is much more difficult than actually escaping. The act of surviving in itself is rewarding, it feels like some sort of achievement. Why? Because Jason is overpowered." I never said I had a problem with players surviving the match. The question is simply how. I would have no problem with keeping it that way, were that condition not so easily abused by unfair tactics or outright cheating, as I've already explained in-depth numerous times. I also believe it would encourage better gameplay by making the change, as I've also explained. Also, I don't think you know a griefer is. Considering, griefers are called griefers because they "grief" (slang) out of grief...which inherently is the reason--so no griefers don't "do shit for no reason." You can't just call any exploiter a griefer, that's not how the terminology works. Honestly this just looks like you're clutching at straws. I think it was pretty obvious I meant "do shit for no reason" in regards to fulfilling an objective of the game. As it is only done to cause another player grief, then it is shit with no reason. Distinguishing between an exploiter and a griefer is exactly what I was doing. Pretty sure rage doesn't make sense omniscient. And I think hiding is a fair/legitimate strategy. The problem is that matches take too long, and spectating sucks. Survival by any means should be rewarded. Considering the match is supposed to represent the night, surviving the night means Jason has to go bye-bye. He's a ghost-- can;t be out when the sun is up. If you enable Sense once Rage is active, you will see whichever cabins players are hiding in as red. Which makes hiding at that point far less viable. While it is legitimate, I wouldn't go so far as saying hiding in a closet the whole match is strategy. It often ends with death so it's not a successful one either, but now every spectator has to watch a player do absolutely nothing for however long. Often players do get put in a position where they have no option but to stealth around the map and hide strategically, and that's okay, but there could be improvements in the game design that would allow and encourage another option. So the idea for an additional opportunity to kill Jason would be an example of that. Anyway this post is pretty damn long as it is so might be a good idea to stop it here. The rest of your post was written in a much better way without all the hostility. I'm more open minded to that approach.
  3. Running has little to do with it. Part 2 is a popular choice because he is fierce in the right hands. He can morph to wherever you are faster than any other Jason and has a ridiculous amount of traps to stop any objective from moving. J7 has one advantage providing the boat spawns, but with J2 you're likely to not even get on the boat. Of course I use Stalk, and I agree it's the way to play J7. But fact is, that's not even his advantage. You would be better off just using Part 9 for this tactic, who is a great Jason and actually has +Stalk, with no -Sense stat. In case you need to chase them down, well he has +Shift too. J6 is another great one, +Sense like J7 but with +Shift and +Knives, a fantastic combo. So in comparison, J7 is not just a bit disadvantaged, he is crippled.
  4. Breaking down doors is not his biggest weakness. It's not something I would even count as a factor. His weaknesses are lack of mobility and lack of map control, due to -Shift and -Traps. He is a challenge, no doubt, and that's something I even liked about him at first. But in practice you just open yourself up to a world of pain against good players (and there are many now). There is no incentive other than aesthetic to choose him over other Jasons. It's actually ironic that he has +Sense, as he has a better chance at finding you but difficulty catching you when he does. How so? How is he more of a beast than any other Jason? None of his stats have any real benefit. Tell me how +Grip Strength (useless), +Water Speed (conditional) and +Sense (unnecessary) make him this beast you speak of. If you don't have a pocket knife you're dead. The boat doesn't always spawn. Sense doesn't need to be kept active so doesn't require a full cooldown. I think what you meant to say was "he's a beast against inexperienced players."
  5. The best conclusion we can come to is that they have been trying the fix the problems but have been experiencing difficulties. There has been no indication of anyone giving up on the game IMO. But I did say a while back after the whole banning disaster that they might not be so quick to bounce back from it all, so the media silence potentially has something to do with it. Who knows. Too many people seem to have developed a stalking habit, keeping close eye on everything they do and what it means. It's worrying that some of the community have stooped to that level, makes me not want to be part of it.
  6. I usually find myself agreeing things can be done better on the dev front, but this being an issue is a little much for me. I wonder how many of the people complaining about this have any idea at all about game development on this scale. Not saying I do, but seems to be just a whole lot of speculation, not convinced it has any bearing at all for the future. I'm all for feedback and everything, but this just looks like people jumping on the next bandwagon to attack Gun/Illfonic. Much like Gun being at Comic Con was an "issue", as if these guys aren't allowed to do anything but work on the game (ridiculous). Illfonic being a business and having other clients makes a lot more sense than anyone abandoning the game. At most, I can imagine work on F13 being temporarily affected, but again that's speculation. Even if that's true, it's understandable all the same. For better or worse, the reason why is likely a legitimate one. As a fan of F13 and of this game, I'm inclined to discuss it with others and share thoughts and suggestions. But seems people are placing far too much focus on it for their own good. I think everyone would do well to step back a bit.
  7. I already posted this in another thread, but my idea was to give him the weed whacker / grass trimmer that he actually uses in Part VII. Huge range and damage would make him a real force once he actually catches up to you. With that weapon, it would make up for his awful stats and he wouldn't lag as far behind because of the weapon range itself. I'd just love to see it in game, personally. Not saying grip strength isn't meaningless though, and it would be nice to see it replaced globally for all Jasons with a stat that does something instead.
  8. With friends, it's amazing. I love strategy and that is exactly what this game is about. Both when a plan works and also when it doesn't, because its hilarious when things fall apart too. You do your best to get all the pieces in place, but it only takes one to make a mistake and then it all comes tumbling down - and that's actually great. Adds a lot of tension and exciting spur of the moment decisions. For a time I had a great group of players and consistently awesome matches you just laugh all the way through. Extremely close calls, crazy Jason jump scares etc. Still have faith in the game, for sure. EDIT: and that's just from a counselor perspective. Getting to actually play as all the different Jasons, faithfully remade with brutal kills and all, is a wonderful thing for a hardcore F13 fan. Having all the different abilities, and freedom of playstyle to creatively hunt counselors, goes a long way towards replayability.
  9. I think most people looking back would say Gun should've given it more time. Everyone just assumed the game was going to be in top shape upon release, given it was already considerably delayed. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" gets thrown around, but honestly I think another delay would've done less damage than what the broken release versions did. Ideally, I think some better foresight and communication to begin with would've lessened the blow. Everyone makes mistakes so I'm not holding any grudges. Same as you, I just hope the next update with single player and physical release will bring good things. The way I see it, there are 2 main reasons why it's been a rough start. Firstly, F13 was released as multiplayer-only game, so when that broke down, it had nothing to fall back on. Secondly, the design of the game is far too trusting. To be enjoyable, everyone must be playing as intended, presumably just like the conditions it was tested in. That's where all the gameplay problems stem from. It's an unrealistic design, that only works under the right conditions. I think that's what they have to focus on next, once they iron out all the stability issues.
  10. "Stop crying and learn to take criticism" is just the type of response I expected. I take criticism just fine thanks, but I don't need the rudeness. Players shouldn't have to learn to deal with exploitative tactics, because they are not part of the intended experience. Any exploits should be fixed as they have been in the past. If the devs had your attitude, fences and windows wouldn't have been made breakable. In fact window looping was still a thing with the previously bugged Thick Skinned perk, which was also fixed recently. So any form of looping is obviously not a legitimate mechanic of the game and not a part of its balance. Not once did I mention this is a constant issue for me either, but I know for a fact it is for many players. A well-balanced game gives new players a fair chance, and rewards experienced players for their skill. Looping is less about skill and more about taking advantage of game design flaws - which is inherently unfair. Dealing with it temporarily is acceptable, but keeping it in the game is unwise. Can do without the sarcasm. Obviously the posts have gone over your head a bit and you're still stuck in the exp mindset. Winning and losing are basic concepts which players care more about than exp. One of the reasons for players glitching is simply that they can survive by cheating the game, which is its own reward. It's also convenient you didn't give any other answer to that little scenario I gave you, other than saying "Glitchers gonna glitch". When in fact it's not actually a glitch, just another flaw in the game design that isn't even bannable for taking advantage of. Currently, it's a legitimate, strategic tactic that by your logic would be "balance". Never mind that it's something completely broken. Obviously I can't have all the answers, I said to begin with it takes greater minds than mine. There has to be more solutions particularly for griefers who do shit for no reason (which was briefly discussed). There are more ideas in other posts you skipped, and it's a lot broader than what you've decided to focus on. No crying, just an intention to improve the game and bounce around ideas. I've covered everything I wanted and made it pretty clear, so if you want to continue discussing then make it worth my while.
  11. While I really do like the idea, I think that unfortunately the bounty system could work in the team killer's favour. Sounds strange but hear me out. This bounty system assumes that players will be able to kill a TKer each and every time. Which firstly, isn't going to be the case, and secondly, is going to place focus on killing the TKer for an exp reward. So it's likely that every armed player in a match will go for them if they're in vicinity. As serial TKers are often griefers who just want to fight and screw up the game for everyone, this will bring them ample opportunity to do so. Again, those who don't succeed will probably get killed themselves, and add another mark on the TKer which means there will always be a bounty and it will always encourage others to fight them. Which is exactly what these hostile type of players want. Team killing is a big distraction in a match, and usually alerts Jason who can easily take advantage of it. The last thing I'd want to see is a match turn into a bounty hunt, rather than playing the game as intended. Some bad scenarios are a couple of TKers working together and ambushing players trying to collect the bounty, or even worse, working with Jason. Basically what I'm saying is they would take advantage of now being a magnet for PvP. The best case scenario would be taking a TKer out of the game right away, especially if you caught them without a weapon. Or a co-ordinated attack by a couple players. But it's not a guaranteed thing and still a distraction from the actual objectives of the match. Going after a TKer, you're just as likely to get killed as killing them. I think other solutions can be found though. I've got some ideas for it, mainly they revolve around looking at the reasons why legitimate players team kill, and trying to eliminate the need to as much as possible. This way it would single out TKers a lot more and punish only those who need to be. Needs its own post though.
  12. Absolutely love the 1st person view. Wish there would've been an option for it, really makes the game a lot more frightening. Regarding the weapon switching, have seen it discussed many times. Other than the work involved, which I'm not going to assume is easy, I believe the weapon lock for each Jason is a balance thing. Factor in weapon speed, strength and reach, you might have too much advantage with certain combinations of Jasons and weapons. Not something I've put thought into, just writing as it comes to mind. However, I do really think that giving J7 his weed whacker / weed eater / grass trimmer / whatever it's called would've been a smart choice. It's huge reach and massive damage would've made him far deadlier and actually made sense to give him a -Shift and -Traps stat. To make up for his lack of mobility and map control, he would have a base advantage that would make him terrifying once he is finally in vicinity. He would be a great Jason to chase with when wielding that thing. Not sure how grabbing would work though.
  13. Right off the bat I can see you've got a unique point of view. That being, legitimate players and glitchers alike base their gameplay only around exp. If this were the case, everyone would be giving up soon as they were convinced they were unable to escape. Why bother for the small exp gain? But of course that's not the case. Reason being, the incentive for winning is because players like to win. I imagine the incentive for glitchers is to win by cheating the game. Exp plays a part but can you honestly say that's what entirely dictates your own gameplay? To be clear, I never said my suggestion would single-handedly solve the problem. I said it would contribute to stopping it because it would discourage players from tactics that try to take advantage of the current win conditions. None of which are good. I disagree that the glitches are the real problem, I believe they are a by-product because they were created (and most commonly used by) players intending to cheat the game by taking advantage of its rules. Of course glitches require their own fixes, but I don't believe entirely relying on a ban system as they are is the way to go. Despite some fixes and bans, I am betting more will be needed. Other things I'll touch upon. Calling players trash is just a shit attitude. You want to discuss things, keep it constructive. Regardless of my own skill level, I've seen enough players have difficulty with indoor looping tactics to know better. If it's easy for you, great. Don't expect everyone to be skilled enough at dealing with it, and don't tell me you enjoy watching 10 mins of it in spectate mode. Do tell me, though, what exactly you're going to do about players blocking off the only entrance to a building with a car, for instance. You think they would do that kind of thing if the game didn't allow them to win by timeout? Lastly, I have no problem with the 20 minute matches. The only problem I have is how they are played by certain people, and this post was a suggestion to change a part of the game that asks to be abused. The one glaring hole in this suggestion is that certain players will abuse it regardless of whether they win or lose, and for that more solutions would be required in tandem. But discouraging is a good first step, and adding some things to make up for the change would be another (which I mentioned in follow-up posts). I didn't even realise this thread was still going honestly. It would be cool to see more people chime in, but I'll just leave it at that for now.
  14. What are you on about? How are any of these posts hostile towards Gun Media? If you're happy with the game as is then great, but don't discourage others from making suggestions seeing as this is the suggestions / feedback forum. Leaving it there, not going to argue.
  15. I would love to see Tina as a Tommy-alternative, particularly to go along with a Part VII map. Having said that, implementing her abilities would wreak havoc with the physics. Weapons getting thrown around, that kind of thing, would probably make a mess of things in the game. So I think it might be enough for her to just be able to stun him without a weapon. Much like Tommy starts with a shotgun with 1 bullet, she would also start with 1 chance to stun him telekinetically (could be some kind of aiming system for it). Same as Tommy, she would also have max stats. And just as I was writing that, an idea occurred to me - her main purpose could be to instantly remove Jason's mask just as she does in Part VII. One shot to do it, but instantly increases the chances for the team to kill Jason without needing to constantly whack him to get his mask off. To balance it out, perhaps there would be an extra step to summon her, more than just the radio, in the match that she randomly replaces Tommy in.