It's a fine strategy. The EGC is meant to prevent holding the game hostage, and killers still have the ability to open gates if they wanted to, so I think it's fine.
I think it's fine since it isint always guaranteed to help the survivors, there's situations where it'll cause someone to go down who might not have, had the door been open already.
Are you asking from a survivor standpoint or a killer standpoint?
As a killer if I'm near a gate that's 99% and I'm not in a chase I'll just open it myself. I get 500 bloodpoints for opening the gate, the survivors get none, and it starts the end game collapse that the survivors were trying to avoid.
I wouldn't mind if it slowly regressed after like 10 seconds of not being touched, like maybe a 30-60 seconds to go from 99 to zero. At the same time though if you make it harder to 99 the exits then it will just incentivize survivors to leave once the gens are done and leave anyone who has been caught, I still think an endgame dynamic is good for the game where there's a chance for a save and a chance to get more kills if their greedy.
It's balanced how it is. Both survivors and killers have ways to utilise the exits to their favour so it's fair. If it were changed then it would probably end up favouring the killer too much.
It's a non-issue. If the survivors had the opportunity to 99% a gate, they're just giving the possibility of a down from that point on. 99ed gates are not a survivor-sided thing, especially since you can deny them that at any time.
Tldr: This is an archived version of the DBD forum, it has all posts, comments and media. The archived data will be published at the end of October. This site is not in any way affiliated with or endorsed by Behaviour Interactive.
Comments
It's a fine strategy. The EGC is meant to prevent holding the game hostage, and killers still have the ability to open gates if they wanted to, so I think it's fine.
I think that it's fine either way, though if I could decide, I would make it so it cannot be 99%
I think it's fine since it isint always guaranteed to help the survivors, there's situations where it'll cause someone to go down who might not have, had the door been open already.
I think it's fine.
Are you asking from a survivor standpoint or a killer standpoint?
As a killer if I'm near a gate that's 99% and I'm not in a chase I'll just open it myself. I get 500 bloodpoints for opening the gate, the survivors get none, and it starts the end game collapse that the survivors were trying to avoid.
I wouldn't mind if it slowly regressed after like 10 seconds of not being touched, like maybe a 30-60 seconds to go from 99 to zero. At the same time though if you make it harder to 99 the exits then it will just incentivize survivors to leave once the gens are done and leave anyone who has been caught, I still think an endgame dynamic is good for the game where there's a chance for a save and a chance to get more kills if their greedy.
did you accidentally pick greatly angered instead of peeved?
It's balanced how it is. Both survivors and killers have ways to utilise the exits to their favour so it's fair. If it were changed then it would probably end up favouring the killer too much.
If you don't like the gates 99 open them yourself
I'm neutral, I just wanted to see what other people thought.
It's a non-issue. If the survivors had the opportunity to 99% a gate, they're just giving the possibility of a down from that point on. 99ed gates are not a survivor-sided thing, especially since you can deny them that at any time.