How do you know if you won?
EDIT: GoshJosh commented about how each survivor would have their bloodpoints paid out once they died, so they wouldn't be around (or be forced to) witness the end of the match to determine their BP multiplier. I commented later in this thread with a solution to that, as well as responses to other issues they sensed.
Sorry if this has been suggested before.
If there is a win condition, it isn't clear. Is it escaping? Is it making sure the whole team escapes? Is it a 2k? Is it a 4k? The game usually feels like it's a 5 player free for all where each player has their own determination for winning and will only act to benefit themselves. I have a suggestion for defining the win condition and making every player care about it. I think doing this will be beneficial because the survivors will act as a team (since it will basically be a technical requirement to make their leveling grind easier), and the killers will be forced to spread out their attention (which will virtually eliminate facecamping and hard tunneling).
My suggestion is this: make bloodpoints earned in each game be based upon the win condition.
I've read that the win condition for a killer is to get 3+ kills and the game balancing is based around 2 kills per game. This is good, but it should be clearly spelled out for all players. My suggestion looks like this:
Game result | Survivor BP multiplier | Killer BP multiplier
0K - - - - - - - x4 - - - - - - - - x1/2
1K - - - - - - - x2 - - - - - - - - x0
2K - - - - - - - x1 - - - - - - - - x1
3K - - - - - - - x1/2 - - - - - - - x2
4K - - - - - - - x1/4 - - - - - - - x4
This can all obviously be tinkered with and modified, but I feel like this basic idea would be easy to implement and will give each side an incentive to do their "job". I think that incentivizing survivors to make sure as many of their teammates survive as possible, and punishing killers who sit at the hook all game, will greatly improve gameplay for both sides.
Ideal scenarios in games with this system in place:
-2 survivors are at the exit gate but the other 2 are downed or on a hook. They will want their 2-4x bloodpoints instead of the regular amount, so they will run to help those players since they all benefit.
-The killer chases and hooks a survivor. They will move on to look for more survivors since a 1k will bring them 0 bloodpoints.
-2 kills, and 2 escapes. All remaining survivors and the killer will get regular bloodpoints earned during that game.
Ways to make this system more effective:
-Make everything in the bloodweb more expensive. If you create more demand for bloodpoints, the players will be sure to work harder to maximize the bloodpoints they earn. The flipside of that would be to make the in-game actions earn fewer bloodpoints, which would probably be easier to implement, and would produce the same result.
-Make a penalty for disconnects for the survivors. Or if this system is in place, modify it to not punish the other survivors.
-Rework keys. Based on this system, there is potential for toxic behavior if 1 survivor gets killed then the rest escape with a key. So my suggestion for that would be to make keys completely useless if there are less than 2 kills. The hatch was implemented so the final few survivors wouldn't be screwed over and still have a chance to escape. I think it should remain like that.
I'm sure there will be discussion on how this idea is stupid, or how I'm stupid, but I'm hoping some people will find this idea exciting. My hope is just to help improve the game. And obviously, if people reading this have potential ways to improve this idea I would like them to continue the discussion and make it better for the players and the developers to implement.
Good luck.
Comments
Heck no. Survivor BP gains are difficult enough as it is.. so even if I do amazing and get out, my score is punished if the others don’t? And even if I try my very hardest as killer, I can now get half the points I would have? Plus it wouldn’t work, as scoring is completed for each individual player when they are done with the trial.
On top of this, increasing the already ridiculous grind? Sorry, but are you new around here?
Also, just watch the opening game cinematics. Those survivors could’ve cared less if others escaped or not.
P.S. - x0 makes zero sense for a 1k killer match. That means no points, which is less than getting no kills in your form.
While the idea isn't stupid, the suggested numbers are. The increments should be smaller and ONLY positive, not negative. A solitary survivor should not be punished for the deaths of their teammates because it's not in their control. Yes, there are people who just throw the match and wait for hatch, but the game won't be able to distinguish those from the guy who finished two gens solo, got 4 safe unhooks and cleansed 3 totems.
Instead, a 0K should grant survivors x2 and killer x1.
1K, survivors x1.75 and killer x1.25
2K, survivors x1.5 and killer x1.5
3K, survivors x1.25 and killer x1.75
4K, survivors x1 and killer x2
In response to GoshJosh
I appreciate your response because I can tell you're passionate about the game. I am too.
I'll go through your points in order and try to clear up some things because I might have been vague about some points in the original post.
My idea is based around the concept of rewarding teamwork and punishing selfishness on the survivor side. My general feeling of the game as a survivor is that I am alone when entering a match. I don't play SWF so I feel like I'm at a disadvantage. I want to make all survivors feel like they are working towards a common goal and can depend on their team. Otherwise, it's just an unbalanced 1v1 game with other people inhabiting the map.
The killer getting half of the bloodpoints for zero kills is so they would get a consolation prize if they got destroyed in a game. I've played killer a bunch and depending on where I was in the matchmaking system I would either get 3-4 kills every game, or 0-1 kills every game. Assuming the matchmaking works and people are matching with others who are relatively close in skill, a competent killer at that skill level should get 2 kills on average (ideally, of course). I don't feel players should be rewarded for playing poorly. They shouldn't be punished (as in the zero bloodpoints scenario), but they shouldn't receive the same amount of bloodpoints as if they had done well against the survivors. It's a competition and I feel that every game should have an official result: win, lose, or draw. It shouldn't be vague.
This is a point where I was unclear in the original post. The suggested BP multiplier would be applied after the match, similar to how BP offerings work. So whatever points you earn in the match are multiplied after the fact. All players start that match eligible to get the top tier (x4) multiplier. If you're the first killed, you get the lowest tier (x1/4) multiplier applied to your score, and the remaining 3 are eligible to get the 2nd tier (x2) multiplier. If you're second killed, you get the 2nd lowest tier (x1/2) multiplier applied to your score, and the remaining 2 are eligible to get the middle tier (x1) multiplier. Basically, the players who get killed would get the multipliers applied to them starting from the bottom of the list, while the remainder are only eligible for the multipliers from the top of the list and drop down the list as more survivors are killed. It would be as easy to implement as bloodpoint offerings. The devs would just need to make variables for how many survivors are alive at the time of each player's death and calculate their bloodpoints based on that with if/then functions.
When you die | Your BP multiplier | Highest multiplier available to remaining survivors
Start of match (no deaths) - - - - - - - - All are eligible for x4
You're first to die - - - - - - x1/4 - - - - - - - x2
You're second to die - - - x1/2 - - - - - - - x1
You're third to die - - - - - x1/2 - - - - - - - x1/2
You're last to die - - - - - - x1/4 - - - - - - - x1/4 (or x1, see below)
I would even think that the final survivor would get the normal amount of bloodpoints if they've been in the match alone for a while. The game already calculates the in-game time, so it shouldn't be difficult to reference that variable in consideration with how quickly the 'team' was reduced in numbers.
Yeah it's a grind. I'm a survivor main so I get it. But that depends on your goals for the game. If your goal is to unlock all perks for all characters, or to get the "best" perks on one survivor, it's gonna feel like a long time. But if your goal is to have fun and not be frustrated every match, then I feel like my suggestion is valid. If you play as a survivor and the team works together, everyone benefits. I want players to actually care about helping the other players since it will affect their total BP instead of just Altruism (all players survive, all players are rewarded for it). If the killer dominates, they have a fun time and are rewarded for it, but will hopefully move up in matchmaking so they face a harder challenge. My goal is to have fun (and do some challenges in the meantime), and I feel the lack of a clear win condition makes it less fun. Without "winning", it's literally only a grind. This is why every player has their own arbitrary amount of concern for the result of each match, and I see that as a weakness in the game. My ideal game would be one where everyone puts effort into the role they chose (killer/survivor) and actually care about the result of each game. And my suggestion would enforce that thinking because your personal progress would be determined by how well your team does. Right now there is no reason for anyone to care about anything except their own bloodpoints. If a system like this is put in place, every survivor would be risking their own bloodpoints if they didn't find some way to benefit the team.
The zero BP for a killer if they get 1 kill is entirely an anti-tunnel/facecamp method. It could be reduced BP instead of none. But if I'm playing as a killer and I'll get punished more for camping at the hook and making sure that one survivor dies, than if I were to just let them all go, I would let them all go. I'd still get BP, although not as much because I didn't perform as well.