AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
When the survivors say they'll report you but you know you did nothing bannable
-
@DemonDaddy said:
Firstly I am not talking about voice comms/swf. I am trying to bring attention & referring to the overflow of hud information. I can't help but feel as if valuable moments of confusion are lost during a match. Hud notifications grant us near immediate knowledge of what is affecting us and how to remedy it. Every hex and lingering status become known and focused upon once implemented. While it is important to know something has been applied, I have to wonder if the specifics are necessary. Based on what is happening when the effect is applied gives a good indication on its own. While I know many may not agree with this and I can respect that opinion, think long-term down the road when we finally get a balance between survive with friends solo and killer. Those intense moments of confusion where the team itself is trying to figure out what's wrong and how to solve it could add valuable time to the match lengths without the need for additional secondary objectives . Give us icons that covers multiple effects instead of individual ones, as this puts everyone one the same field regardless of communication. Momentary lose of direction is a subtle but strong effect. That's my thoughts anyway.
What concerns or opinion do you have in regards to the inflow of info and where should Dev's draw the line?Check
We've had a whole debate on whether we should add more or less info to the survivors-side and covered whether the game should go into the blindness direction or into the Equal-To-SWF direction when it comes to information given by the game.
We are currently in the middle and this too is a problem.
-
Selfheals should be devided by 2 as well to measure it's net-strength against basic healing.
If it would be a teammate heal then hypothetically it would last for a mere 3.15 seconds!
-
I read "Non Meta Build" similar to how a youtuber like Monto would view it; a build that you play because it has a fun theme behind it, rather for the pure sake of it being strong.
This build is strong, but that's not why you're playing it.
-
Reworked version of Open handed
+
Object of Obsession
-
Saviour
Build with 1 of the new perks.
-
When I said 11 seconds I kinda referenced the med-kits timer alone and how it has so many charges that you can keep it so long.
With botany knowledge I think, without add-ons you're already looking at a 8 seconds heal.
With add-ons it only gets better (:
-
I completely agree that no mither isn't strong. Especially when the killers know that you can recover from the dying state. There's no element of surprise. That is why people previously suggested that you start off healthy, but with the broken effect, we can say goodbye to that.
After seeing how the (youtube) community has treated the perk, I'm unsure if it should be buffed. It has become the icon of making the game harder for yourself. In some way that's refreshing as well.
Although your changes would definitely crank up it's power, I'm of the opinion that this is the only perk that should be kept deliberately weak, for the sake of how it's the manifested icon of challenging yourself as survivor.
-
that one simple addition to the code only possibly fixes ONE of the other potential issues that could pop up from this.
Name a second killer that has a mechanic in which they could possibly benefit from trapping a survivor in a corner for a longer duration than 120 seconds and show me how much of them you can find.
and that doesn't entirely solve the issue of banning people for breaking the rules which happens with every online game and SHOULD happen.
In shooters they remove friendly fire because people don't want to be shot at, instead of having deliberate friendly fire banned, they took care of the code, with now the vast majority playing shooters with friendly fire off. Did that ban all possible reporting issues? No.
How is this even a point?and no, a 10yr old could not code something like this reliably, thats why we don't have 10 yr old kids designing complex games like this.
They teach programming to kids nowadays.
If you asked a basic kid with programming lessons to write a script that turned off a component (in this the killer collidor) for a few amount of seconds, they'd be able to do so.There is nothing complex here. Just a timer that turns something off if it reaches a certain point for a certain duration.
If that's difficult code to you then any code is. Even changing a simple variable. -
So to reiterate it once more, it does not solve the overall problem of being able to take the game hostage by killers 100% it simply removes one of many ways.
If you manage to name even 1 of the many ways, then I'll abdicate.
If you as a killer can keep me hostage and I cannot prove that through my code I can bypass you then you'll be right and I'll be wrong.
If you fail to do so it'll amount in the opposite. Go~
-
That proves my point as already it's not just a simple fix it is now already something becoming a lot more, and it still only solves one small aspect of the problem not the overall problems, as I said the players why always find another way
it is now already something becoming a lot more
With this becoming a lot more, you really mean adding 1 if statement to deal with 1 killer's exception?
it's not just a simple fix
It is simple. It is very simple. It is so simple that a 10 year old can code it.
it still only solves one small aspect of the problem
It solves 100% of all the Killers being able to keep survivors hostage.
as I said the players why always find another way, what's next no stagger on basement stairs? If you stealth too long you get kicked out?
What does this have to do with a killer keeping a survivor hostage again?
It's not about bad game design as the only way to sort it is to force end it the game and they pick a winner
Sometimes I seriously doubt if you understand the post.
There's no picking a winner. When a survivor is basement trapped, the killer should hit him if nothing else is going on on the map, thus progressing the game. No winner should be picked. -
You can change the maxBodyblockTime variable depending on a situation. If there is an abnormality such as you mention then all you need to do as add 1 boolean (isPlayerBearTrapped) which is already in the game and use that to set the maxBodyblockTime to the beartrap timer as long as that condition is true.
About 4 extra lines of code and I think we just covered all abnormalities with it. Pure and simple.
This is why there is a rule stating don't take the game hostage where it cannot progress as it covers a multitude of reason, break them and face a temp ban, that is why temp bans are in place to teach people a lesson.
Banning players for something you can let the game solve yourself is terrible game design.
And if it's true that Not_Queen specified the rule exactly as @Kaelum did, then the official rule doesn't even solve the problem.These few lines of code do.
-
This code solves basement camping too. (if it's for an overdue amount of seconds).
Yes, if you just hide in the basement you'll never escape, but you have a factual and uncounterable (on the killers side) way to slip by him too, which is again standing right next to him.If he takes a step back as you said, then you walk a bit further and the timer will go down by like 0.1 seconds before it starts increasing again? All in all, you'll get out in around 125 seconds.
The solution proposed solves ALL FORMS of killerbased "taking the game hostage through bodyblocking" scenario's.
Just like many shooters prevent through code that you can shoot your teammates instead of handling it through reports, we do the same with invalid bodyblocking for killers.
If BHVR deems this worthy of something to do, they could detect when the killer is in the blockable stairway area, there are no survivors above the killer, and there are survivors in the area below that.
Why would they even do that?
This code already solved that problem; there is no way a killer can lock a survivor in any given spot for an invalid amount of time, wherever they are.
-
PIRATE BUILD YARR
There's nothing more fun then starting the game with a random cool item that will influence on how this match is played out. (You can switch Urban Evasion for Up De Ante, but that'll make hatch escapes to keep items harder)
WHEN YOU GET HERE I'LL BE GONE BUILD
Look around you! The moment you get a notification, run the other direction. If there isn't much vision and they kick the Gen, you'll already be gone! Keeps the killer wasting time. Works great in hatch games and against stealth. (You can switch Urban Evasion for Iron Will)
11 SECOND HEAL BISH BUILD
YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HEAL YOUR TEAMMATES with your med-kit. Just yourself. You'll heal up in about 11 seconds, meaning that you save about 20+ seconds for every time you get hit! That's almost already more seconds you would be faster with a toolbox and you'll still have charges left. Don't forget that literally 2 of your perks increase item efficiency! (Could change Ace In The Hole for Plunderers Instinct or Streetwise)
-
-
@Theluckyboi said:
Then why are killers always complaining about survivor juking them and calling decisive overpowered?juking, because of the low-framerate and low MAX sensivity settings (mainly coming from console players) and decisive overpowered because it wins a team so much extra time that a killer cannot win against an even decent survivor team that runs it 4 times.
-
Guess which killer you're facing
-
When you guard your hooks
-
Untrue. In order for you to know the difference between the (what queen states to be) the bannable bodyblocking and the not bannable bodyblocking you need to look into it.
If you reject these reports then you let the bannable bodyblockers slide, if you do the opposite, well we covered that.
So the question is, why waste individual's time with something we can permanently solve, by letting the game handle it, through something that can be implemented with just a few lines of code?
If you are bodyblocked by a teammate or killer so you cannot participate. Ban worthy as long as you report it.
It shouldn't be ban-worthy, that's the point. The game should take care of these situations and it easily can. Way more effectively.
-
-
right click and press "save image as" (:
-
It would serve very little purpose on its own.
I have never seen it happen. Understanding that it only comes into play when all remaining survivors are being body blocked.Well here's the problem;
The problem isn't that it happens frequently, it isn't that the people who are doing it are not banned.
The problem is that by stating that a form of bodyblocking (keeping the survivor hostage) is a reportable issue, which the majority of emotional survivors do not understand the boundaries of, which causes an over influx of reports.By bringing out the statement: Bodyblocking/keeping hostage (again in the killers case, because we haven't touched the survivor case here) is NEVER bannable, we'd be able to get close to nullifying these incoming reports or automatically reject them if in that selected category.
-
Isn't it dead clear what we're talking about? Literally the first Headline-section covers defining what I mean by the title. It even specifies keeping survivors hostage.
-
And there is a possible exploit involved with such a process. A survivor that's hugging the killer (such as constantly dodging hits or just mashing their face into the killer's backside while sneaking unnoticed) can build up the bodyblockTimer enough to trigger the no-collision without it being a situation where the killer was taking the game hostage.
Thought about it, but the reason the timer can't reset is because the killer could pull back. If it were to reset then the killer would be able to still keep the Survivor hostage for an incredible amount of time.
I think that if there is a 60 second long collision (among which there are constant moments of decrease) then the survivor would Deserve to move through that killer.
I still it'll be a 1 in a 1000 where such a thing would trigger during a chase.
If not, then we'd change the 1 in a 2 or a 3 multiplied by delta time when decreasing the timer.
-
Don't bother multiplying dT by 1, just += the dt.
I deliberately leave it in so it's more obvious to people that it increase and decreases in seconds. But there's indeed no inherent need for it.
You didn't multiply by dt when you were subtracting 1 for moments where the player is not colliding with the killer. But like before, just subtract the dt.
Typing code in the forums opens up so much opportunities for mistakes, good eye there. Fixed it.
You didn't declare bodyblockTimer, shame on you.
I did xD, it's at the top (floating point number). It just has some unintended text in front of it. I'm not that familiar with using Markdown.
-
How often does this scenario actually happen, where you need to body block someone for an entire hook death?
It isn't about how often it would happen, but about whether a killer should be allowed to do so.
If yes, then that killer shouldn't be punished by the script changes we'd implement.
-
@Visionmaker said:
Bodyblocking to take the game hostage is bannable. Not sure why people don't understand that concept. There are toxic people that literally play Wraith just to plug people up in the basement to stream it on twitch.This would be a good solution.
@Visionmaker
Thank you!I'm glad you mentioned the basementtrap as well. Multiple people could be caught by that.
P.S. the timer for taking the game hostage, in this case, does not start until every other survivor is dead. Until then, it is fair game play per not_QUEEN.
That also means that the statement of queen if it was specified like that is even disfunctional at actually targeting the full issue as, indeed as you mention, multiple people can be trapped by 1 killer, never triggering the condition of last survivor being held captive.
Happy you mentioned that.
-
If you're going to bodyblock until someone is dead that isn't too long and I would see that as fine
Me too. That is why I think settling with a full hook timer for the bodyblockTimer is appropriate.
So while I find your reasoning for "taking the game hostage" pretty silly
What reasoning do you mean? The reasoning that letting a survivor stand there for hours is bad and should be solved through script, not bans?
Or do you believe I stated that cornering and bodyblocking for a prolongued amount of time is an effective strategy? I've never said such a thing. -
@Kaelum said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape read my P.S.So you agree with my post? Mostly?
But the difference is that Not_Queen says that after that amount of time it's reportable and instead I say, after that amount of time (wherever during the game) we script the ability for a survivor to temporarily move through a killer.
I don't understand why my post is so misunderstood. I disclaimed most of what you commented about in the original post.
-
I have never seen any killer do this, and it would be the taking of the game hostage, not the body blocking, that is bannable. Definitely a troll post.
Bodyblocking isn't an isolated topic here...
The title says: "BODYBLOCKING AND KEEPING THE GAME HOSTAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL."it means that through bodyblocking you prevent a survivor from moving, and not just moving (as this is often a strategy), but you do so with the intent to force a disconnect.
Not_Queen has stated that this behaviour is reportable, but more than not has this lead to survivors claiming that the behaviour of killers is reportable where it's not.
Thus my post, completely doing away with any form of reportability surrounding taking games hostage through bodyblocking, thus taking away any confusion and useless reports sent at Behaviour.
-
no, I dont camp, in fact I punish players in game by map pressure so bad that players dc more often than I actually get kills, body blocking killers just moon walk, its hard but you can go around
I'm not sure if you understand the post, lol.
This is not about camping. It's about catching a survivor in a spot where he is unable to move for a prolonged amount of time with the intend to force a disconnect.
-
@Kaelum said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape I’m not sure what game you are playing, but it certainly isn’t DbD. Body blocking is not bannable, unless it is being used to take the game hostage, thus taking the game hostage is bannable. However, this is NOT the type of game hostage that everyone is talking about. Survivors remaining in the game AFTER the exit gates are open, is what pretty much everyone is talking about. Nice troll post though.I already made clear what is meant by the terms.
This is about the killer holding the game hostage through bodyblocking (forcing a disconnect), which Not_Queen has responded to is bannable.No troll post here.
-
That is why, if there is a strategic purpose to your bodyblocking, it should be allowed. This is why we can use the bodyblockTimer to insert the amount of seconds one should be allowed to bodyblock (typically one could say a total of 120 sec is valid. The same total as hooking time)
-
If you corner a survivor and you go on a vacation to Portugal, then the survivor has no way to end the game other then to be forced to disconnect.
-
@Dwight_Fairfield said:
Body blocking has always been permitted by the game rules. Its in the same bracket as camping/tunneling. Its annoying, but its perfectly legit.Not if it's used to keep the game hostage, from what I have read.
body blocking is legal, also the code I do not understand at all
explanation right below the code.
-
@PhantomMask20763 said:
WHYYYYYY?! How am I going to tell someone they had a funny post. They probably removed it because the Legion changes post had like over 70 LOLsThe legion already needs a new rework xD
-
It's a list of 4 rules I invite a DBD forum to comply to.
Book 1 Summary:
When you think you solved a problem in DBD but nobody listened to it, it's probably because they already see the problem with the solution you came up to.
You're simply behind in the process.
(Advice: Try to find out why the problem hasn't been solved before posting about your own solution)Book 2 Summary:
"When cancelling mending it should reset, but after you make a salto you get an increase in speed for 15 seconds but not if you unhooked someone when the killer is within a radius of 5-10 meters from the 3rd gen completing".
It doesn't matter that your solution completely solves the the balance issue. If your solution starts sounding like the above, it already stopped making sense Conceptually and your suggestion exist for the pure sake of unattractive balance. At this point your solution is not worth considering.
(Advice: Make sure your balance changes have a concept behind it that suggests exactly the solutions that you came up with)Book 3 Summary:
Just making a post about what you think would positively improve the game is not enough, for basic economic reasons, being it limited available time/resources.
(Advice:) Don't post about things that aren't really feasible.Book 4 Summary:
The Devs are not the devil. The reason why they didn't ban your toxic teammate from yesterday is not because they endorse them or that they don't care.
(Stop it with these hate rants targeted at this fictional picture you have about the devs intentions) -
Then look at it from this way:
We remove the Hatch mechanic. (Which is the quick fix or free out of jail card for dealing with the the rock bottom of the Death-Efficiency Problem)
(The hatch mechanic is after all a way of saying: "We know our low-survivor game malfunctions. Here have a mini-game when entering this part of the game; play find the hatch instead.")Maybe you start seeing it now?
-
@Vietfox
The scary thing is, if you wish cancer to enough of people, some of them will actually end up dying to cancer.
Makes you think twice, huh -
*when you climb up a lantern but u can't get down *
-
When you try to mind-game at the shack
-
@DrVonKrumm said:
I found this to be a rather interesting problem to ponder so thanks for that.However, it occurs to me that surely solving the ‘death-efficiency problem’ is the point of the game. As a killer your aim is to lower the survivor teams efficiency by chasing them away from generators in any way you can, as well as causing regression, and all round applying the pressure of your presence to as much of the map as possible in order to buy you enough time to kill all of them.
As survivor your aim is to keep the efficiency as optimal as you can for as long as you can, prolonging chase to buy your team some time, getting people of the hook to keep your numbers optimal, etc. I don’t think that a loss of efficiency is a ‘problem’ so much as it is a ‘result’ of early game plays.
Now obviously you mention the sharpness of the drop being disproportionate to the percentage of players left in the game, and while yes in the example of stages you gave those numbers appear to add up, what about the time it takes for the killer to even find someone to chase in the first place. Before the first survivor is found then have an opportunity to operate at 133% efficiency (using 3 survivors working on a generator as 100%).
There’s also a lot of chance to consider too. The selection of perks, items, add ons, and some offerings can impact the survivors efficiency at the start of the game. Hex: Ruin can lower it, Leader can improve it. Perks like Sprint Burst and Decisive Strike are aimed at prolonging a chase, therefore giving other players more time on a generator.
In conclusion (in case I haven’t explained myself well) my stance on the matter is that the reason that the game can become super unbalanced at times is because it is the job of either side to take the balance at the start and tip it into their own favour. Sometimes one side does a better job than the other of taking control, and sometimes the fickle finger of Lady Luck just wont point your way.
To respond to:
However, it occurs to me that surely solving the ‘death-efficiency problem’ is the point of the game.
The Death-efficiency problem is not that survivor efficiency decreases upon the death of a survivor. This is obviously part of the game.
It is, as you recognise, the problem that it does so disproportionally, due to certain mechanics of the game.No kills and the 1st kill is the difference between night and day. The difference between 100% efficiency and 0.
A place where everything gets done and where 0 does.This is why a killer is smart to tunnel. It's the most efficient move.
It mostly only requires them to tunnel the first person. After they have gotten rid of them without the survivors having had the opportunity to push many gens, their game is basically over.
A killer can often stop tunneling after his first kill and still consistently win the game.
That shows just how strongly this problem is manifested.This reminds me of some stats that were collected from Gears of War tournaments. Up until Gears 4, the competitive mode was 4v4 Execution (a last-team-standing elimination mode for those that don't play). The game is broken into rounds, and you need to win 4 rounds to win the map (and you usually play best of 3 or 5 maps).
>
Someone did an analysis of "first death" and the outcomes and found that the team that got the first kill had something like a 75% chance to win the round (ie. the game drops from 4v4 to 4v3). The team that got the first 2 kills had a 95% chance to win. And if you got the first 3 kills you have over a 99% chance to win (basically a 4v1, you can't come back from that except in EXTREME circumstances).
Correct. In games that take their competitive side very serious see this as a great issue. League of Legends dealt with this snowball effect by making a killed champion worth less gold upon being killed frequently. This forces the winning player to have to find other players of the enemy team to snowball further, thus taking into consideration everyone's decision making.
I don't think you understand the problem. The problem isn't:
that the game gets harder with less players on the survivor side.
The problem is that there isn't much of a game after the first survivor dies.
This means that:
A. The killer gets completely beaten up, by failing to end the first 1/2 stages. (unfun/bully experience)
B. A first kill spirals into a 4 kill. (Killer OP survivor claims)This is why you, in case of an early death, rely so much on the Hatch mechanic.
The premise for solving the Death-Efficiency Problem
This is the ideal world: (taking 4 survivors working on a Gen as 100% this time)
From:
4 survivors alive: 75% working efficiency
3 survivors alive: 15% avrg working efficiency
2 survivors alive: 0% working efficiency
1 survivor alive: 0% working efficiencyTo
4 survivors alive: 100% working efficiency
3 survivors alive: 75% working efficiency
2 survivors alive: 50% working efficiency
1 survivor alive: 25% working efficiency
(reduced by 25% when in a chase)So what does this mean?
It means that the last survivor still has the ability to progress the game at a 25% of the total survivor power."But survivors already have this speed, what do you mean?", you ask. Well, they don't, and for the simple reason: A killer can patrol quickly enough to regress the Generator you're working on, checking the area and patrol further, before you could've switched to another one, let alone get any progress done.
The point is to make survival for lower survivor counts last longer, meaning that they have to endure longer under dangerous and deadly conditions.
It means that 1 survivor should be able to win against a killer, if he manages to play 4 times better (thus 4 times longer) under conditions of being haunted by a killers presence.
It means that there are no mechanics that unfairly cripple low survivor counts through any dynamics of the game.1v1ing a killer in a 5 Gen game? It would be possible, but very unlikely. Unlikely, not because it demands the killer to make a severe mistake or mis-patrol, but unlike as in the duration of you playing flawless is extended by 4 times the time.
In addition.
If we managed to achieve the previously mentioned, then follows an interrelated balance change:
The base conditions for escape are increased in difficulty. Meaning that it'll be less likely (along fair lines) that all 4 escape, but also with the lack of spiralling into a 4k.If 1 or 2 team-members died and there are plenty gens to do, don't worry; but this requires twice your patience.
quick mention:
I mention, taking the solving of the Death-efficiency as in its perfect state, that 1 survivor would take 4 times the time to open the exit games. This is of course untrue. Even with the disproportionality of Gen-Efficiency solved, it would still require low survivor counts to play extra carefully, thus adding a disproportional amount of time needed, but this time they at least have a chance.
Then again, I will cover a plethora of approaches and solutions later when I have them all prepared. The forum is typically a bad place to communicate interrelated ideas, especially when they come in separate posts.
-
When you see it
For anyone who found claudette before seeing the Trapper; You truly are a killer-main
-
@Master said:
@alivebydeadight said:
can you sum it up for me, im too lazy to actually read it4 survivors alive = bad if you want to win as killer
Solution: kille one ASAP (also called tunneling by survivors)
That is why your win should not be decided upon pulling this 1 thing off to get the better end of the Death-Efficiency Problem.
Your decisions (on both sides) should be valuable throughout the game and the importance of them should be spread.
Killing the 1st survivor is already infinitely more valuable to killing the second or the third. This is how our problem is defined. -
@JanTheMan said:
What is the problem with this?Because the game must be balanced around a said escape-rate or whatever factor you want to use, you find yourself picking a somewhat average spot in between the good and bad Stages.
However, because of this, early plays/mistakes are rewarded and punished disproportionally, where as later plays have significantly less effect. This gives the feel of "It's already over", or in the opposite case; "this is won for sure".
It also kills most of the end-game potential this game has, as it's all about keeping the first 1/2 stages up as long as possible, and if it flunks, it's already over.
It is why Tunneling is a strategy so vital to killers, where as it ruins the fun for survivors.
It would be healthier if the Death-Efficiency problem would've been solved, making it so that survivors more consistently die, but that is less frequently spirals into the death of all.One can say that the Devs already noticed this problem; it's the sole reason why there is a new hatch mechanic. But that of course is a lousy way to "solve" it)
-
TL'DR:
In a 4 survivor game as this, there is an effect called the "Dead-Efficiency" problem.
This problem makes it so that, upon losing 1 unit (25% of all survivors), you lose disproportionally more in strength, giving survivors a feel of despair when things go wrong, and making it so that in games where no survivor dies early are almost instantly lost on the killer's side.I cover how pallets and Generator Regression both worsen the problem and invite readers so solve it. (I will do so myself when I have more time)
-
I like the idea. Certainly adds more theme to it.
I thought of a similar idea of make Hex totems only light up when they're within the killers terror radius.
It kinda has this creepy turning on effect: at 2:54
This way you wouldn't randomly stumble upon a hex totem before knowing there even is a hex.
-
"Be careful with people who spread fake quotes. They will be punished in the end.' - Anne Frank
"History is written by the historians" - Napoleon
-
Oops, you found a tiny innaccuracy in my original notation. What is written as the first hit in tier 1 should not be there, because i describe the first hit that brings you to tier 2 in tier 2, of this was the misunderstanding you had.redsopine01 said:Ah but them how do you activate tier5
Otherwise:
You don't necissarily activate tier 5.
You either "get" tier 5 (by hitting 4 survivors only once during this single activation of frenzy).
Or you apply the effects of tier 5 (by being in toer 5 and hitting a survivor for the second time).
Unlike any other tier, tier 5 doesn't stun you afterwards, meaning that you can keep applying tier 5 (the insta down) to every survivor you have reach to.
In case of a Meg, Dwight, Kate, Jake;
Hit all of them once during frenzy = tier 5
Try hitting them all a second time to insta down them. (They are all hurt from your quick cuts proc anyways). In tier 5, every hit (inuclding your second, resets the frenzy bar until all of them are down or you run out because you failed to reach them in time.
Upon exiting frenzy, you become tier 1 again. -
Strategising in games of such a complexity as Gears of War or League of Legends, DOTA or any of the bunch do indeed have a multitude of potions through which they can secure their objective.
They have a lot of variables to consider.But for every 100 options you have in League, you probably only have 1 in DBD.
In league, to get closer to the nexus, you need to destroy towers, but for that you need to win lane and winning lane is where the complexion kicks in.
It isn't as complicated to see how you would push the turret in DBD (the generator); M1.
and perhaps add 1 if statement to it:If(killerIsChasingMe == true){
LoopKiller();}This is why there's a reasonal disparity between Gears of War and DBD when it comes to pre-established communication. With the strategic simplicity of DBD, you will not suffer from it noticeably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCcvX9CcILA
https://youtu.be/bzB7PtN02To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxYcj3X83E