On Generators (Addressing Preliminary Repair Interactions)
Because I thought somebody might/could find it useful and because I don't think the 15% efficiency penalty is the way to go.
Addressing Generator Speeds Solving the Issues of Early and Mid-Game Generator Speeds
This slideshow is meant to present a way to bring more interaction between survivors in DbD to avoid excessive monotony of solo survivors sitting on generators and also to circumvent the inability for a killer to be everywhere at once on a map.
Comments
If I'm understanding this correctly, the suggestion essentially is that Generators should have a "minimum repair progress" bar early on in the gen's progress. When Survivors start working on the gen, based on the number of avaliable generator sides for Survivors to work on, they have a timer to fill up that "minimum repair progress" otherwise the gen explodes and resets to 0 progress. Unless Survivors bring as many of their friends as there are generator sides or bring a toolbox, the gen is impossible to properly begin repairing.
I don't agree with this at all. I'll just start listing the problems as I think of them:
Sorry to be so hard on this idea.
No need to be sorry about being "hard"; I appreciate the most critical feedback I can get. It helps me improve my post by leaps and bounds more than someone giving no reason or even simply ignoring the post. I'm grateful you took the time even to read it and then respond. In light of your points, I have changed some of the numbers to be more lenient (solos can start on a two-man gen, two survivors can start a three-man gen, etc.)
(One caveat before I begin my response: I vehemently oppose all regression perks other than Overcharge & Lullaby and actually wish that regression of generators behaved much differently than it does today. imo, it's the root cause of stealth play not being as viable as it once was. I'm in the process of making a slideshow about that, but that's not going to be ready for some time)
Anyway, with that out of the way, I'll start with your point (#2) about the Killer ensuring at least one survivor is downed at all times.
Yes, I acknowledge that in almost all high ranked matches, a killer will be downing survivors rapidly, preventing as much as possible the "gen rush" of survivors sitting on generators with nothing else to do. I will take this to be the case for all matches for the purposes of this point's rebuttal. Typically, a match will begin killer survivor interactions as follows: a survivor runs (to a gen or out in the open, it doesn't matter) knowing that he/she should get to a generator as fast as possible. The killer spots this survivor and the survivor spots the killer. A chase ensues. The other three survivors are (hopefully or unfortunately, depending on POV) all sitting on separate gens. If the survivor first found is good, he/she will avoid going near the generators undergoing repairs until the chase ends. At this point, perhaps two or no generators have popped and one survivor is downed and subsequently hooked. Survivors now must either choose to finish their gens or leave to go for the unhook. Someone then dies, for whatever reason. If at this point, a minimum generator requirement was implemented, it would be practically impossible for the survivors to manage properly. That's the live situation.
What my suggestion and implementation would do: Since survivors would know that they can't exactly risk being in a chase immediately given the possibility of being unable to start initial repairs on a generator, hopefully that initial phase will become less mandatory and survivors who don't want to be found first won't feel compelled to rush out. Survivors who are confident in their abilities to be chased can still do so and be personally rewarded in terms of emblems and bloodpoints, but it's less useful to the other survivors. Here's the first difference: being bold as a survivor is no longer a team move at the start of a trial. It becomes more useful to other survivors once time has passed. Let's assume that the same events happen as did in the above situation. A survivor is now being chased and is avoiding generators undergoing repairs. The other three survivors, however, cannot operate at maximum efficiency. They first have to find another survivor (if not find a solo generator) and complete the minimum requirement. Once that is done, what should the survivors do next? Split up to avoid the penalty? But they're already both there, and most likely another survivor would have to be found in order to even begin progress on another generator. Perhaps the survivors decide that it is best to leave the generator and find another generator to get the minimum repair requirement out of the way for their future time in the match. If the latter occurs, when the survivor in chase goes down, there aren't several generators about to pop all at once. Instead, time was taken by the survivors to make sure that as many generators as possible could be worked on later on by a single survivor if the need arose (because once a gen's minimum is passed, survivor and generator interactions should be as they are on live).
If a killer has managed to down survivors rapidly enough that the survivors have not already ensured that any generator can be repaired by a solo survivor, the survivors not in immediate peril must prioritize between altruism and objectives, which should create intriguing tension. If a killer is doing well enough to get a chain of downs before any generator undergoes repairs, then a solo survivor without a toolbox will, yes, be benefited most by rescuing a survivor and working on a gen together to bypass the minimum, ignoring the survivors in need for a moment. However, if a killer is getting downs that fast, everyone is doomed anyway most would agree.
This brings me to your first point: (tbh, I was still mentally operating off of the toolboxes as they were before their most recent changes and forgot that the added toolbox repair speed will easily circumvent the parameters I have just put in. I'm still not sure how to reconcile that. Maybe it'll be okay? I'm going to have to think about it.) While toolboxes might be able to stand in for a teammate when trying to bypass the minimum requirement, that is no different from the live version's potential and so couldn't possibly make the game any worse than it is now. I see Bond becoming much more prevalent than toolboxes, but I suppose we differ on that. I can't be sure until I see this idea implemented in a PTB for testing because I have very little idea as to how survivors will react to that.
About Discordance (Point #3): I dislike the perk, but this is not that discussion. Perhaps it would be necessary to put a maximum range on the perk and have that be the requirement that changes with tiers rather than having the perk get worse as it grows in rarity. About the other part of this point: I thought I put in the slideshow that the minimum requirement was a one-time thing and would, as such, only affect early to mid game, when generators are still being touched for the first time. A generator would never regress below four charges so that survivors would never have to go through minimum requirement on the same gen twice. I should have better explained this in my presentation, so this point is a result of my lack of communication.
About Point #4: Teammates will forever ruin any change this game implements in an attempt to bring balance. There's not much anyone can do about their teammates other than try to identify issues early on and be prepared. Mainly, I would expect said "dumb teammates" to want to experiment more with aura reading perks like Bond in order to become less of a burden to other survivors. It should be somewhat harder for people who aren't as savvy as other survivors to rank up, so hopefully there will be less survivors that do nonsensical stuff as rank goes from brown to red.
Point #5 is a point I want to handle delicately, as this is a playstyle I prefer immensely. I've recently been put into many games where I've been forced away from that playstyle and am required to boldly rush gens or face the wrath of Pop. The whole gen regress meta has been ruining my survivor experience in DbD (also Deathslinger, but he's for another post). I made this suggestion in order to allow for the exact kind of playstyle you mention (while not restricting a bold playstyle, if that's what you like).
If you bring in a toolbox and set your mind to work on a generator alone and another survivor does not have a toolbox, that survivor will require your help to start a generator and will most likely seek you out. If neither survivor has a toolbox, then both survivors are inclined to seek each other out and stick together (as it should be because splitting up in a horror movie without the right tools is DANGEROUS). If you want to say, "** ** you, teammates. I'm going to go be a lone wolf!" Go for it. You shouldn't be hindered from doing that other than in the early game, when perhaps it is less important to do that. Bring in the tools to run your playstyle, and there should be nothing to stop you. (I support the push to make items more valuable for survivors). Showing up when people need help is only mandatory once per gen, and not even that many times if there are multiple other competent survivors.
About your last point (#6): I play Hag. I smiled at this. Yet, also, I smile at the four survivors running Urban Evasion who manage to get significant progress done on a gen, several charges past what would be the minimum, when I turn away for a moment to briefly patrol. I'd have to see the situation in action to know how to respond to this point.
If you have any further objections, I'd love to hear them, especially because now I know what parts of my proposal cause misunderstandings.
I really enjoyed responding to you. 😊Thank you for your comment! Best of Luck, @Lexilogo .
P.S. this is a prime example of a wall of text. Feel free to use as you see fit in context.
Or maybe a killer could do some skill checks on a completed gen to regress it by a certain amount.
In case the wall of text was too intimidating: The min req is a one-time thing, and due to the way trials progress, is sure to support a diversity of playstyles while balancing the reward of bold plays to the rest of the survivors with stealthier plays.
It wasn't really that the wall of text that intimidated me too much, I've written bigger in my time.
I'll keep explaining why I still don't think it'd work out, mostly addressing the centers of the points here:
"Here's the first difference: being bold as a survivor is no longer a team move at the start of a trial. It becomes more useful to other survivors once time has passed."
Yes, this would change Survivor behaviour so they'd run around less at the beginning of games to get to gens quickly, their first priority would instead be getting the minimum repairs done ASAP so they can repair as normal (so, grouping up).
However, I honestly don't think that's much of a problem that needs solving. I'm a bit weird because I actually enjoy multiplayer stealth scenarios (apparently, that's pretty unpopular), but Survivors being waay more incognito at the beginning of a match may be frustrating to Killers and Survivors by making games feel much slower to properly "start". Currently, while Survivors do dash to the first gen the moment they spawn in, that DOES have the advantage of incentivising Survivors to leave lots of traces which helps Killers get an early lead on chases as opposed to walking around blind.
"If a killer has managed to down survivors rapidly enough that the survivors have not already ensured that any generator can be repaired by a solo survivor, the survivors not in immediate peril must prioritize between altruism and objectives, which should create intriguing tension."
First, I'd argue the scenario of downing Survivors rapidly enough that all gens haven't had their minimum time set up yet is achievable even by far below average Killers. Most Killers consider in the current version of the game getting a down after 2 gens have popped as a bad start, for example. The right Shroud offering might cause Survivors to be able to achieve their minimum gen times faster, but it'd still take several minutes even with a pretty co-ordinated, competent team.
I estimate if these changes were to be implemented, assuming no Shrouds are used to manipulate spawns I would still be able to find a Survivor as Killer before all the Survivors were successfully able to group up.
I would also argue that the #1 priority for Survivors would be keeping as many Survivors alive as possible and capable of getting as many gens past the minimum time as they could- It wouldn't really be a tense decision, it would more be a mandate. There are too many potential "well, we're screwed" scenarios that'd result if Survivors ignored this to pop gens, eg. A 3-gen scenario that would usually be fine for the Survivor team turns into an effective 2-gen lockdown, because the final generator has 4 sides and one Survivor is dead and the two gens with their minimum times done are nearby.
While toolboxes might be able to stand in for a teammate when trying to bypass the minimum requirement, that is no different from the live version's potential and so couldn't possibly make the game any worse than it is now.
This is a very bizarre balance statement to make when you think about it so you should probably consider it more. Imagine, for example, if you locked the Survivor's ability to sprint behind a Perk, then said "that is no different from the live version's potential and so couldn't possibly make the game any worse than it is now", for example.
My point isn't that Toolboxes would directly get stronger, but I guarentee every single Survivor lobby would be nothing but toolboxes. They would just become too important for the game for Survivors to leave behind or take Flashlights/Medkits in exchange for.
"Teammates will forever ruin any change this game implements in an attempt to bring balance."
To an extent, asymmetrical multiplayer that feature a solo player versus a team always struggle with the issue of teammates, and how much dumb teammates should/shouldn't impact a match, but there are different ways to balance that are more/less friendly to dumb teammates.
Eg. One of my biggest flaws with Evolve during its beta (don't know enough about Stage 2/rebalances to talk about that stuff) was that pretty much the only one of the Hunters allowed to be incompetent was the Support, because they would just partially fill different roles depending on which Support they picked. If the Medic was incompetent, the team would wipe in their first monsterfight, if the Assault was incompetent the team didn't have a chance of killing the monster, and if the Trapper was incompetent they'd never get a chance to fight the monster.
That wasn't necessarily an unsolvable problem with Evolve, however. That's just because in Evolve's case, the four roles were SO unique and vital that you could have the best players in the world and they'd still lose if they were stuck with a bad Trapper who couldn't successfully lock in the monster.
To try and resolve these issues, you want the "team" side of the asymmetrical game to have avenues for individual success and team success (hence the Hatch), you want as much of the game as possible to be intuitive (hence why all Survivors technically have to do to win is walk up to things and hold M1), and you want an individual player to be able to make a big impact. I don't think changes like your suggestion move the game in a good direction in this avenue.
I think the big problem here is that you're overestimating how much even a co-ordinated, 4 man SWF can efficiently group up on Generators. Even if Survivors knew that's what they have to do now and all worked together, Survivors being grouped works out beneficially for the Killer in so many ways (Whispers, finding one means occupying them all, might get an extra hit in on a few, lots of leads so if one gives you the slip you can switch targets, lots of slugging potential) that I fail to see how this change would result in anything other than the Survivor Item meta becoming permanent Toolboxes to avoid the minimum gen repair timers.