Survivor-Caused 3-Gens. No Big Deal Anymore?
The proposed '3-gen solution' seems like it should genuinely nerf 3-genning killers while leaving 'normal' killers unaffected, but what about 3-gens caused by the survivors?
It seems like if survivors 3-gen themselves, it's no big deal anymore since they can just play it slow and defensive and burn through the killer's kicks.
This is exactly what many were worried about, as survivors 3-genning themselves and the killer capitalising on it was seen as fair. Now survivors can just do whatever gens they want and don't need to worry.
Comments
Genuine Question so I can understand YOUR POV better:
In the current state of the game, with all the mechanics survs received to iron out their critical mistakes (e.g. saving while killer is near, 3 genning themselves, not having map awareness, not understanding killer powers, not playing as a team, ...) how many handholding mechanics do you think survs need to play the game and still deserve to win?
Apparently not enough.
Instead of doing a proper QoL changes like seeing team mates perk loadout inside the match, let's just continue handholding survivors by granting them a free pass on their mistakes over and over. You see it's ok to tell killers how they should be playing, but not ok to educate survivors avoid doing crucial mistakes as well as addressing a bad spawn of generators properly.
I don't see bad spawn of hex totem being addressed anywhere. Apparently it's ok to have killer's hex totem spawn nearly in the face of the survivor. 3 gens spawning together? We won't relocate gens, instead we will make sure killer can't regress them anymore at some point. Classic ( not ) un-biased logic here.
Because they've been stacking 4 crutch regression perks and boosted themselves to high MMR. Now they're unable to instill pressure without absurd slowdown builds.
I really dislike this logic. Apparently the only “real” high MMR killers play with bad/no perks because of this arbitrary “crutch” definition.
Would it be fair to talk about how many survivors have “boosted themselves to high MMR” with “4 crutch second chance perks”? I never see that brought up, but the inverse is so common in so many threads. “These killers are in an MMR they shouldn’t be in because [crutch perks/camping/tunneling/slugging/3-genning/playing nurse/playing blight/anything else survivors don’t like].” It’s condescending and insulting.
What perks are killers allowed to use and not be boosted?
The way you say
Survivor boosted themselves with
And killer boosted themselves with
And still not yet mention top tier addon.Proof that its far easier for killers to boost MMR than survivors, especially Solo
If you stack just 2 of them in the list and not manage to get more than 2K, the MMR you're standing is already higher than where you should be.
You have so perfectly proven my point it’s kind of incredible.
4 Crutch perks from them
4 crutch perks of survivor 2
4 crutch perks of survivor 3
4 crutch perks of survivor 4
Basekit BT plus haste
Anti face camp + hook grab removal
Literally uncounterable perks like buckle up + ftp
Unbalanced maps with infinites and god loops/pallets
The problem isnt killers being to strong.
The problem is 90% of survivors are literal idiots that dont understand general game mechanics but still insist that they win however they want to play!
Show me these players.
Killers have strategies that are too strong for the average player to deal with effectively. That should be addressed.
I can't even think of any overpowered second chance perks in the game at the moment.
Maybe FTP Buckle Up but that relies on teammates.
The problem with a lot of 3 gen situations is if you chase, then the remaining survivors just pile onto one of the gens. If you chase, you lose the gen. If you don't chase and protect the gen, the game just slowly turns into the survivors whittling away at the gens until you lose the gen or until the survivors just lose patience and give up. Either way, it's a sucky situation. This is of course assuming the survivors dont make a mistake and you down someone during the 3 gen in which you are likely to win. Overall, the 3 gen scenario isn't really fun for anyone, imho. Strangely enough, some of the weaker m1 killers depend on a 3 gen, as they don't have the map mobility to defend gens farther away from each other.
Inversely the killer will burn through all of the pallets in the area. It is still detrimental to 3 gen yourself as survivor. Eventually with that section of the map clear you will be able to quickly down survivors. Killer and survivors now both have finite resources in a 3 gen. Also 8 regression events is still a ton and burning through that is going to take a massive amount of time still. The majority of games theres 8 regression events in the entire game, let alone on 1 generator.
so you also just have "git gud" to say... then say nothing, it's worth more
I didn't say to get good, I said to take a chase.
Depends
An injured survivors will sometimes leave Gen when hearing TR getting close. A last hook survivor will leave the moment they hear TR. An injured on last hook survivor will not dare to touch Gen
4 survivors are suppose to scatter around Gens. Why do you think the moment you start a chase, 2 of them instantly spawn at the most progressed Gen?
Its late game, pallet is less, chase will be short ; Medkits are depleted ,healing will take longer ; one time perks are used , they will be weaker in chase; Toolboxs are gone, Gen will take longer to do. You say like all survivors are as fresh as the beginning. Remember the longer the match, the weaker survivors are.
Unless after 4 Gens, all 4 are healthy and no one on death hook, pallets are still many because they run so well, not even using Medkit yet…at that point, why killers think they should have a chance to win after getting beaten that hard?
Should 3 survivors think they should win after a teammate died at 4-5 Gens?
Some does by mistake, some just to throw the game.
Thing is, is the effort that you stand in front of a hook equal to the effort the 4 random people have to input to counter it?
Is missile homing to a single injured target (tunneling) requires equal effort that survivors have to input to counter it?
Is holding W between 3 Gens requires equal effort for the remaining survivors have to input to counter it?
It is the same to a tap can deny a Gen kick. It wasnt about regression being slow and no damage input. Its the effort was not equal between a kick and a tap.
Oh and survivors using strong perks do not guarantee them to win. I can use 4 meta, take a long chase and teammates do totem and chest. I can use off meta and teammate stack Gen perks with toolboxes. I may just sit on Gen without perks and escape because killer tunnels the strongest runner.
On the flipside, if you nerf that, then you have survivors who are too strong for the average killers to deal with effectively. This is a 2 way road. Killer players are just as legitimate of a player that survivors are.
Unless after 4 Gens, all 4 are healthy and no one on death hook, pallets are still many because they run so well, not even using Medkit yet…at that point, why killers think they should have a chance to win after getting beaten that hard?
Because the game isn’t over yet! What kind of question is that?
It wasn't my intention of commenting on whether a killer should be able to win if they've lost multiple hooks due to saves. I was merely correcting an assertion that 8 surges = 8 hooks = winning. Because that isn't necessarily true.
But answering your question directly... it very much depends on how well the survivors use that time that a successful save buys them. If they fail to use it productively at all and merely continue to swarm the killer, the killer should still have a solid chance of winning. And I personally have still won in that exact situation.
Also, I personally wouldn't call getting hit by For the People a critical mistake. If it's done properly, it's much more of a no win situation.
I think a better wording is why should they have a FAIR chance to win, since most of these arguments are based off of fairness.
I do not see that represented in any data.
Why didnt you quote that line together with my last one?
Should 3 survivors have fair chance to get 2 escape with a teammate die at 5 Gen?
Yes! As I said, the game isn’t over yet.
Im glad you agree that 3 survivors alive with 5 Gens standing should have 50% chance for 2 escape.
That isn’t what I said, and if you’re going to be disingenuous about it then I’m not going to continue this conversation.
No, you're disingenuous my point.
You keep saying the game isnt over yet. While the answer are already clear at both case: NO.
The chance for survivors to get 2 escape is zero percent, its all about 1 escape hatch (or not). The same case to killer, get beaten that hard should never win the game at that point.
If you think killers should have half a chance to get 3-4K in killers' case. You should think its fine that survivors should have half a chance to get 3 escape in survivors' case.
Tooth asked if you think that 3 survivors should have a fair chance at a win at 5 gens and you said yes. I'd love to know what your definition is for "a fair chance" if 50% to 2 out isn't it
Btw, this was the conversation.
The killer role is actually becoming a joke. Now a survivors mistake isnt punishable, its actually a viable strategy for survivors.
Slam those gens out even faster, no need to worry about which ones you're doing!
I am getting really close to leaving this game, I already would have if there was an alternative.
The chance for survivors to get 2 escape is zero percent, its all about 1 escape hatch (or not). The same case to killer, get beaten that hard should never win the game at that point.Its actually even more stark than you say, because even if the survivors have dominated the game up until that point, a killer can still snowball the survivors. Its far more common than the survivor comeback.
You just proved my point.
You using 4 strong perks gives time to your teammates. Them using this time to cleanse or open chests instead of pushing gens is their bad game decision and not the fault of the killer.
So you think the killer should lose in this case? You are chasing for 5 minutes bcs of your perks and good tiles/pallets, your teammates think goofing around is better than doing the objective and you still think you should win?
Btw its an asymetrical game. Killer is alone against 4 survs. Therefore his time is much more precious than survs time. You cant compare those.
So killers should just inevitably lose against decent players? Just so average to low skill survivors can win against good killers?
Which data?
You mean the data that shows 60% killrates including self offing on hook?
You mean the data that shows nurse had a below targeted killrate?
You cannot take data just if it suits you. If you take dara serious and think killers are overall to strong bcs they sit at 60% killrate, we need massive nurse buffs to accomodate for that!
That, once again, isn't represented in any data.
This isn't 2018. Killers aren't a weak role like you seem to be insinuating.
I highly doubt we'll see significant changes from this once Killers are given time to adjust. Although, I suppose there is a chance that the Gen Kick Meta is too deeply ingrained now.
Yes, I do think we should buff Nurse to be easier to play and to be more accessible.
Those stats also didn't include DC's which raise the effective Kill Rate. In reality, the Kill Rate is likely closer to 70%.
Why do I care what the community believes? It's astounding that you'd think that the people who designed the damn game doesn't know it.
This community is divided into survivor and killer mains. The ones who complain the most are the same ones who complain over and over. Survivors and killers both. Make no mistake about it, this forum isn't even a drip in the bucket of DBD's player base. The game is balanced around raw numbers. Not individual playstyles.
Oh we shall buff survivors now according to how often they DC?
Are you even reading what you are typing?
You wanns give in fully to the entitlement?
Everything survs cry about shall be buffed for them?
You really just dont understand how balancing works. You dont want a balanced game, you want an easy one!
Would you rather nothing happen and the game go stale?
I'm looking at this from the perspective of a software engineer. I know every little nook and cranny of my projects. You can bet that bhvr does too. You just don't like the changes. Some of them I don't like. But I'm not laying blame on the game designers.
They proved it multiple times that they dont fully understand the core mechanics of their game.
And at least, that most of them are die hard survivor mains.
No friend I'm not trying to blast you. I apologize if you took it that way.
And there it is.
"Anyone who does or says anything I don't like is a diehard Survivor main!!!!"
At least we've gotten to the crux of the matter.
I'd actually rather have a more difficult game as Killer, since that's almost exclusively what I play.
I am not saying to count DC's into balance, but it's important to be able to understand the genuine state of the game. It is HIGHLY probable that, counting DC's, the Kill Rate was near 70% which is extremely high. Whilst I do not think that should factor into balance, it is important as to understanding why people feel the way they do about the game.
I actually said we should buff Nurse to be easier to play, if you would read what I'm typing.
Someone already addressed this. Read two post above yours.
you saw some of the devs play?
Some of them streamed, some of them played publicly.
Google it!
This forum is the survivor echo chamber.
Not admitting the last patches have been overwhelmingly survsided and most of the maps, even after "rebalancing" are completely in survivors favour, is absolute ignorance.
You may be a killer main, but you obviously dont play against good survivors regularly.
Everyone and their aunt can win against 200hrs survivors with perkless/addonless trapper...
Oh?
So you play comp, I presume? Since you're resorting to the tried and true, "You're just obviously so bad at the game" thing, I assume you must be in a position to cast such judgment.
A couple people here have seen me play Killer. They know.
The Forum is honestly pretty Killer-sided, as is Reddit. Twitter and TikTok are very Survivor-sided.
Ooo, how dare the Devs not be gods at their own game!!!! God forbid they, gasp, don't want to play the game after spending 8 hours working on it.
the mechanic is not hand-holding mechanic. it is prevent abuse. In normal gameplay, you will not hit 8 regression events. They also buffed killer kick to 5% regression and weakened gen-tapping.
Correct, survivors make mistake, they should lose
It works the same to killers, a killer play a game normally should 60% kill rate a team that play a game normally. If survivors stack meta more than killers, they win. Same to killers, If you stack more meta than them (slowdown, strong killer/adon, tunneling), you win.
The point is, survivors can stack more meta than killers. But its far easier for killers to stack more meta than survivor. You will barely play against average solo that stack 100% meta in their 32 slots of loadout. You as killer can keep the same 100% stacked meta loadout through 1000 matches.
Beside. as @Devil_hit11 pointed, tunnel/camping/slugging/3Gen are pretty much build-in for killers that survivors have to use exact perks with exact play to able to combat it, which is almost impossible for Solo. A survivor should not be robbed to play a game if a Bubba M2 his chainsaw ready right next to a hook. I would quit the game if 10 matches straight against face camper, the only gameplay is either look at killer then die or look at Gen then escape.
"It's astounding that you'd think that the people who designed the damn game doesn't know it."
They don't though. They've come up with multiple ideas that -no one- liked. Most of these got cancelled by community input, but there's a reason they ask feedback.
They don't know the game as thoroughly as the players do. They simply -can't-. Someone among the thousands is going to have a better grasp on some things.
"They don't know the game as thoroughly as the players do. They simply -can't-. Someone among the thousands is going to have a better grasp on some things."
Yeah I give you that. But that's also not what I said.
I know that's not what you said, but it throws a wrench in your appeal to authority.
The devs don't know.