AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
I can do flowers and parts. I never have to do generators. See how generators are a side-quest? After all, for something to be a main objective route, it has to be mandatory. Didn't you listen to what Paddy told you?
Why is it so difficult for you to just say "ok, building parts is a side quest"
Because that'd be lying. Lying isn't difficult.
-
@Edys said:
You need a generator (remember the color scheme?).
The car is the generator.Producing a part is a side quest, deal with it and move on.
So I cannot complete the game through just parts and the flower?
-
You don't need a car; You didn't need a gen. You needed a flower and parts.
Aka, you didn't need a flat gen; you needed a part-gen. Doing a gen is no longer 1 process. It's 2.
-
After 5-10 games disconnected you lose the ability to play for half an hr, with a bp/ experience penalty, if this happens within a day of each other.
After the wait periods up, you gain the chance to play again.I agree with the wait period. That would be by far the best way to prevent people from DC'ing (for the fact that if they DC a lot they cannot play the game).
I liked the particular suggestion for that waiting period from:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/46732/disconnection-discussion-696-969-696-969/p1
a lot. (Together with the suggestion of Orion of making it daily + that daily meaning that it resets after 1 day of not disconnecting/having disconnection penalties.)
-
You had my answer ages ago. You simply decided to close your eyes;
In a multi-route environment neither routes are mandatory. Neither are they side-quests. Both are doing the main quest, but there are simply multiple ways to do so.
In case you still don't understand it after hearing it over 5+ times:
If you have to go to Rome and there are 5 pathways going directly to Rome, taking neither route is mandatory, but picking any of the routes is you doing the main objective.
In my OP there are 2 pathways. The existence of 1 allows you to ignore the other.
In the Handle example there is only 1 route, meaning that doing that route is mandatory.
In a multi-route environment no route is mandatory, but choosing (a mix) between the routes IS still mandatory, by definition of them being you doing the main objective. -
@harry14141414 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
hey@harry14141414What if the killer'd get the points of each DC'ed survivor and each survivor gets the points of the DC'ing killer? (:
read throught the replies in this thread, I already mentioned also survivor need points for killer DC
even though they get 5 k I think but Im not surehum? I know.
I'm simply saying; if your opponent DC's why not give the points they do not get to the opponent?You mentioned Party Streamers; if you run party streamers and someone else DC's you still get an extra bonus as a result.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.
Not that hard to understand is it?
It wouldn’t be if when I asked you if the finding of parts being mandatory was the differing factor, you’d simply replied YES, instead of NO.
Great so now we are on the same page that, you believe a mandatory additional action added to the game, would in fact just be a way of “adding more time to the gen”, which you believe to be a nerf as it adds mandatory additional steps to pull off the escape, and you would define that as a nerf because it essentially reduces the odds by slowing survivors down?
Are we agreed so far?
You did not read what I said. Reread what I said until you understand it:
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is. -
Yes you are teammates. Sacrificing yourself for the team can literally be more rewarding than just escaping, both point and pip-wise.
As a survivor you cannot grief your teammates under this definition of griefing:
- Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game.
It's bannable, because your are not allowed to deliberately screw over your own team.
-
hey@harry14141414
What if the killer'd get the points of each DC'ed survivor and each survivor gets the points of the DC'ing killer? (:
-
So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.Not that hard to understand is it?
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2The rogue-like is a bad example since it's single player, but the fortnite example is good:
The reason why the fortnite example works is that the collection of players in total always have a 100% win-rate.
Fortnite: 100 people with 1% winrate.
Football: 2 people with a 50% winrate = 100% winrate.But in your 4k example, survivors and killers will never total a 100% win-rate per match the same way fortnite and football does.
It actually adds up to MORE than 100%. Since each player wins and loses separately that makes it effectively 5 "teams" (for lack of a better term) rather than 2.
If everyone has a 30% winrate then that's a 150% total winrate, or in otherwords you would expect to see an average of 1.5 winners per game
Survivors are 1 faction. Killers are 1 faction. There are only 2 numbers that there are to add.
If you play a squad versus squad in fort-nite you don't get a 200% win-rate for each time 1 squad wins. The win-rate per member should be 50% per member in the squad, meaning 50% per team/faction on average thus 100% per game.
-
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
You cannot ignore that part. That part is what makes it a nerf. If you didn't have to find handles but you could just add them (dunno, for decoration's sake?) then it wouldn't be a nerf.
What the hell are you doing xD
And thisis your idea at its simplest level!
My idea gives more options. Giving more options to someone is not nerfing them, even if an extra option would be considered so weak that it's impossible to use in the same way that adding:
New totem: Takes 10k hours to cleanse and gives you a cool sound when it breaks!
Note how it doesn't slow the game down? It's just something you can do that you can ignore.But the 10k hours totem being MANDATORY would nerf survivors to the ground, making it impossible to win.
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your exampleNo, you cannot ignore that part, what the hell, lmao
-
however you seem to have included the premis of it being mandatory
It: in the context of what we have previously discussed is the main objective. If there are 10 ways to get to rome, neither route is mandatory to achieve your goal; It means the choice between those routes.
So no:
so is your definition purely and additional mandatory action is a gen in disguise?
That's completely not it, which is as obvious as a dead fish.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Generators take 80 seconds do they not?
Great a good start:
So when you say people want to add more gen time in another form, give my an example
of what you mean by that...More gen time refers to the 440 second objective timer;
The following proposal would be part of that:You have to do 5 gens (like normally) >> Now you have to find 2 handles that spawn >>> now you open the exit gates with the handle.
Normally you could just open the exit gates but now you are MANDATED to find handles.
-
The tables would probably not despawn;
This is how I had it in my head:
The work-bench is simply the visual representation of where the parts could be done. (1 always spawns in the basement).
The work bench could have 1 special "thing" standing on top of it; either (or both) indicating whether it is possible to instal a part there at this moment or how strong that part would be.
Adjusting strength of parts could be done through whatever anti-trinity method; the way workbenches become available and switch between availability would switch based on said conditions, though currently unknown.
-
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more timeGenerators take 80 seconds do they not?
-
The rogue-like is a bad example since it's single player, but the fortnite example is good:
The reason why the fortnite example works is that the collection of players in total always have a 100% win-rate.
Fortnite: 100 people with 1% winrate.
Football: 2 people with a 50% winrate = 100% winrate.But in your 4k example, survivors and killers will never total a 100% win-rate per match the same way fortnite and football does.
-
It's not the debuff vs buff matter the problem, is the engagement in the activity that differs. Even sabotaging a hook is somehow more entertaining because there's a vague strategic component in it.
I dislike dealing all with all the debuff elements:
Reverse bear traps, Mending, Mangled, etc.
That aside:Even sabotaging a hook is somehow more entertaining because there's a vague strategic component in it.
This is indeed what makes it more exciting.
For a period of time I've tried solo sabotaging and even though in the end I end up doing a lot of progress bars; moving around the map while someone else is getting chased can really switch things up. (Let's ignore that I make my team lose the game by solo sabotaging xd)That is the element that we copy in the generator parts; the strategy is to have generators at certain locations "prepared" for in the end-game, where they will be significantly harder to protect.
While doing so, you'll be moving through the map similar to me when sabotaging all the hooks.What is an interesting afterthought to that is: Part of the fun, (which we haven't really discussed yet) is in the way crafting tables spawn/are available/how plentiful they are.
It is perfectly possible, for example, to use the vase example I gave earlier (breaking the trinity) and use that to buff a workship/crafting table, resulting in parts becoming stronger (translating into you being able to create a part that is the same as 2 or even 3, to name something).
There are a lot of ways to go about things (:
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate.
I suggest estimating again.
The survivors need to survive; that's the balance; a 50% survival rate. That means less negative experiences across the board. As simple as that.
We both agreed that in a perfectly balanced game a 50% survival rate requires an ungodly snowball effect.
Games where you lose more than win tend to be more satisfying in the event that you win, thus having a low winrate across the board.
This is hardly the only game that balances like this, battle royal games only have a 1-5% winrate (depending on the exact game we are talking about) and they are extremely popular. Roguelikes are known for being hard enough that many people never get to the end at all and dark souls is popular enough to almost be it's own subgenre.
Both genres are not 2 teams against each other. There are very little places where games have 2 teams against each other with an (intended) unequal win-rate.
-
<Nope not interested in your after the fact comments. I’m very clear in what I’m referring too, seems to me most of the last 10 pages are people who are clear in seeing its you who doesn’t understand!
Me: Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
You:WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?
You:That is basically the whole proposal of your idea!My post doesn't want to secretly add more gen to make survivors weaker. My Op both buffs killers and survivors in a different area, which means that if you're a killer you will definitely be confronted for your lack of skill. Same goes for you, since you clearly fall in the category of players that want to simply add gen-time.
-
Nope I never stated such a thing I have never once mentioned nerfs.
I stated that many people simply want to make survivors weaker. My OP doesn't do that. No hypocrisy. Just you not understand things, but we are used that.
-
I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate.
I suggest estimating again.
The survivors need to survive; that's the balance; a 50% survival rate. That means less negative experiences across the board. As simple as that.
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2Define a win for a killer? They definitely pipped in their matches.
I think ZubatLel pipped/neutral pipped in ALL his games from rank 20 to rank 1 without PERKS AND ADD-ONS.That's about a 100% winrate there.
Killer win = 4k
Survivor win = escapeI can't stand it when people conflate ranking/pipping with winning
Killer 4kin is not a win. Pipping is winning, which is why you rank up when you pip and not only when you 4k. When you 4k, you typically double pip meaning you did more than just winning.
You stated that:
Survivor WR = 50%
Killer WR = 50%this would be balance. But if a survivor should survive 50% of the time and a killer should 4k 50% of the time THEN LITERALLY EVERY GAME should be all survivors dying or all survivors escaping, otherwise such a ratio would be IMPOSSIBLE, meaning that if 1 survivor escapes, all should magically become alive, otherwise your suggestion is impossible. xD
-
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
Not realivant to what I called you out on, or the topic we are discussing.
Im not moving to a new topic you’ve added in along the way to deflect from you just giving a simple straight answer
You said that me stating that simply nerfing the flat amount time needed for survivors to progress is a bad idea and you said it's hypocrisy.
Showing you how I didn't simply nerf the flat time requires is exactly relevant to the topic lmao.You don't even know what topic you are on yourself. You didn't even know what topic you started with. Every single claim has been wrong.
-
So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
-
@Boss said:
Dang.
As a Killer main, i like it.
But as a Wraith main, it wouldn't really do anything.
Though that's moreso a Wraith issue, truly wish his cloaked movement speed was more...You're not the only one...
(been a wraith main too for a while xD) -
@Paddy4583 said:
This is literally the whole proposal of your idea in a bit shell... and we are literally saying it’s not a secondary objective.
You are the person in this situation passing extra gen time off as something else.Ha, and now it's suddenly no longer a side-quest? (:
I thought a side-quest after all would be ignored.My OP is not a survivor nerf. My OP is twisting power for high-survivor counts to low-survivor counts, creating a more generally functional outcome throughout the board.
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
And seriously. Wanting longer games isn't a bad thingYes; flat out longer games are very bad. Everything is bad about it.
Once the first survivor dies, it's time for the other 2 to DC. -
Define a win for a killer? They definitely pipped in their matches.
I think ZubatLel pipped/neutral pipped in ALL his games from rank 20 to rank 1 without PERKS AND ADD-ONS.That's about a 100% winrate there.
-
More than half of survivors SHOULD be dying. Since the only way for the game to be perfectly balanced otherwise is to have an ungodly snowball effect to the point where after 1 survivor dies the others are literally guaranteed to lose
Exactly HALF of the survivors should escape through the exit gates and the hatch should not be a free-escape factor in that.
I'm not sure if you checked the win-rates, but I suggest checking them again.
So you wanted more gen-time after all, sugar coated as second objective? No thank you. -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
What do you mean making it less obvious? I've been explicitly pushing for new objectives which slow down the gameYes, that is simply a terrible idea, for the vast majority of the player-base. A lazy killer nerf that inherently has nothing to do with the topic of new objectives. You simply ask for more gen-time.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.
6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?
There is no hypocrisy here. Where as others simply want to nerf survivors, my suggestion creates a tool through which survivors can survivor better in the late-game but is inherently slower than the current 400 seconds.
That is both buffing the killer and survivor in a different area (and exactly the right ones as well)
-
@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious. -
If the parts were 100% always required then it would be meaningful since then completing a generator would require more than 80 charges
Meaningful to what?
-
@Paddy4583 said:
Locate bench and make part by.....?
return to gen and install part by...?
Complete gen after installing parts by...?Like I’ve said it’s just an optional side step to doing a gen!
Only your optional side step means hold M1 somewhere else and moving between holding M1 again to complete the gen.
The side step may offer a different option but it is by no means a secondary objective or an alternative to doing a gen with M1.
most of the linked post was referring to the other listed objectives as not required mandatory to do in order to escape, and your idea is the same!
inflating holding m1 with the actual problem with holding m1-counter: +1
People'd want to do totems, chests etc, but it's simply always putting themselves behind since it's not mandatory.
also:
Misuse of the word mandatory in a multi-route main objective-counter: 3Chests do not progress the 420/440 second timer directly, neither do totems. Doing Parts directly adds 15 seconds of irregressable progression.
-
@Paddy4583 said:
His topic title shows he understood the M1 situation...A second objective (correct); An alternative to pressing M1 (referring to "gen-jockey m1 simulator")
You do get an alternative and through that alternative you aren't going to complete any generator with a bot that can only press M1. -
Also, a shooter is not a button simulator because the "click" comes after (and during) "aiming", re-positioning, recoil correction and so on and so forth. Repairing a gen is a static endeavour, totem is static, healing is static...
That is the beauty about holding m1 and that is that is becomes more exciting when the killer is nearby. In a shooter there's more to it than R2, but in DBD there's also more to it then pressing M1; consideration of whether you should be doing it; added pressure on your decision making when the killer is nearby and whether you can afford to be spotted, etc.
Doing a generators in the end game when there are few left in the end game is intense. In the early game; not so much.
When the killer is chasing someone, the chance of you having to make such considerations is very low. A lot of the time.
That is the beauty of parts: The players that aren't chased are moving through the map. There is a chance that the killer finds them out-positioned and suddenly turns on them. More frequently will you have an interaction with the killer when the killer is chasing someone else.In fact I think my two unfavourite things in the game are mending (...10 seconds...) and removing a reverse bear trap (...12 seconds...).
This is probably not for the reasons of being a short timer necessarily, but because what you "accomplish" by that is a removal of a negative reward rather than a reward, both while in a very fragile situation while compelled by a timer to hurry.
(That timer aspect is also what people complain about when it comes to camping and some believe it should stop ticking if the killer is close. Dealing with debuffs is never fun and doesn't feel like a victory.)I also dislike the bear-timer and the mending, but I do like taking care of the dull-totems, which have a very similar timer and there's also running in between things.
-
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShapeSo in the analogy of the SoB
If I walk up to a generator and give it 40 charges. Then I stop working on the gen to collect 3 pieces of beef which I put on the stick next to the generator. And then I go back to finish the generator, assuming I have no items, always get good checks and am not being effected by any perks how long will it take me to complete the generator?
Yeah, the flower example is the better example. Remove the sticks; once you instal a part on a generator it transforms into a flower. (you then work on the flower. You can no longer work on the generator since of course a flower isn't the same as a generator.)
You wouldn't be able to work on a (flat)generator the moment you instal a part on a stick. You'd have to work on the stick instead.
Perks in the hypothetical version simple also affect sticks:
Perk x: Increase gen progression and stick progression by y/z/a -
Let's agree to disagree. I don't know what was posted in the topic you mentioned, but can we agree that the definition "dead by daylight is a m1 holding simulator" is broadly used and based on facts (I mean, you even demonstrated that something as trivial as unhooking is in fact a m1 holding simulator :P)?
Now if you look at the link posted in OP and in a comment above, do you see that the term: M1 simulation critique comes from the extended bar timers and not from the fact that you'll frequently need M1?; for the same reasons that shooters aren't aggressively (/in negative light) called R2 simulators.
As shown from the comments. People didn't mind doing totems (more M1) etc. The problem was that doing so wouldn't be them completing the main objective.
That is exactly what we are addressing in the OP. We make sure they get to move their legs and get to see the map > have chances to run into a chase, etc.Doing some fun stuff with anti-trinity mechanics like the vase I just mentioned can of course be tried out! But there's no inherent reason for that to be a main objective, especially if they weren't part of a multi-route implementation, as this would make them MANDATORY and thus more repetitive as well!
i don't know what is the "perfect" solution
I mentioned it to be the perfect solution to solving Death-Efficiency (the problem of the game malfunctioning balance-wise upon survivor death, mandating that the main game gets replaced by the hatch). The reason why it's perfect at addressing it is because you can see the part system as a system with
A: more possible places where you can be
B: you circumvent regression
C: you don't have to be at a certain location for too long (which is a little bit part of B )Those are the fundamentals for making the game minimally functional for lower-survivor counts, which are all addressed through parts;
(link to this topic in the OP I think)
-
Because no matter how many sticks of beef you have it doesn't mean jack ######### if you don't walk up to a generator and hold M1 to give it charges
you''re not walking up to a generator. You are walking up to a stick, what are you talking about?
the issue with the sticks of beef thing is that in order for it to really be that you can do them instead of gens you need a mechanical difference from the suggestion in the op.
Nope, just sticks. The vanilla gens next beside of them never have to be touched.
I can do a gen for 40 seconds, and THEN go and make then install the parts, doing this is meaningfully different from doing the whole thing with no parts and installing new parts from the start. However if the parts fill a separate bar then this interaction is lost (or in otherwords, a stick of beef would effectively be created in the act of doing a gen, however the act of creating a stick of beef would never be enough to fully complete a generator)
In addition there is the point about how eventually a generator is completed and you no longer can work on it in that location anymore. In the SoB analogy the mechanics wouldn't interact so you would effectively have 2 gens adjacent to each other where now we have 1 for a total of 14 power mechanisms only 5 of which are needed.
TLDR: Stick of beef doesn't work because in order to prove your point it needs to be meaningfully and mechanically different from what it is supposed to represent
No; the stick example works just like the flower example (they are identical). If I hadn't clarified it there then I'd assumed you to understand the part that the stick simply the container of the term Part-Gen, but if you find that example unnatural try the flower example:
(the flower example represents my op more perfectly as I think I didn't mention in the stick example that you wouldn't be able to work on a generator once a part is installed on a stick)Once a part is installed that generator transforms into a flower. ---> You can complete the game without ever progressing a single generator.
(replace generator with flat generator and replace flower with par-generator and notice how the game-play is identical) -
@Free_Hugs said:
"One of the most perfect methods of doing so."You want to have a debate about Death-Efficiency then?
You really are spare parts, aen'tcha bud?
Generic insult. Unimpressed.
It's a shame you care more about getting your ego licked then actually improving gameplay for anyone.
Explains why this thread has gone on for 10 pages despite people expressing their discontent with you.A lot more people were positive than negative about it. You for one were negative about it. Paddy as well.
But after all, paddy didn't see the inherent issue with the moonrise event linked to survivors leaving others alone to die on a hook, due to how the points worked and you believed a diminishing return method would result into problematically high outcomes, so that might say something about the credibility of your criticisms (;Suffice to say, the closest thing to "perfect" you are is "perfectly dense", like a neutron star.
That is enough, Always. You are dismissed.
More generic insults. Again, unimpressed.
You still avoided giving your definition. I've no idea why you'd not simply answer it. I defined all my terms. -
@Free_Hugs said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Free_HugsWell, language is communal, so lets see.
What?
I asked you what the definition of a vehicle was and you showed me a car. That's not communal. A car is not the definition of a vehicle.Now pick one from your poll, because I only care about YOUR definition, not mine (:
I don't think you know how exchange of information works.
Two individuals can only share an idea by understanding what it is they're actually discussing.
You clearly don't.
So I put up a poll to help. You can get a consensus on what people think "doing a gen" is that you'll then be able to refer to with your "they" "them" "everyone" drivel.
When someone asks for a definition, giving an example is simply not a definition. As simple as that.
Also, what does "They", "Them", "everyone" have to do with the definition of doing a generator?
(Maybe you're mistaking a flat generator with doing gens?)I simply ask for your definition. (or everyone elses). Now give me the one I should respond to. (:
-
Me: Unhooking is also a gen. It's a shorter gen LOL. It's all a progression bar; ranging from 0 to infinite seconds.
You: and with this I'm now sure you're either trolling or really incapable of discussing with anyone
So I'm no longer trolling for stating the fact, right? Although I'm not too surprise that you are able to abdicate from blatantly false claims as you are smart and did understand the issue with stealth and team-coms.
except that is exactly what you are not getting.
"doing a gen" in the context of this discussion is equivalent to "m1 holding". So yes, even "healing someone" is not that different than "doing a gen": which is exactly the point.You wanted a definition of something "different than doing a gen":
an objective that does not imply the holding of a button in order to be achieved.saving someone from a hook for example.
healing or cleansing a totem, instead, are basically "doing a gen", even with their difference on timing / skill checks / regression... they still are m1 holding.Do you understand what people were complaining about in the post about why people want second objectives?
I understand that you want to break the trinity;
Something like: "Break a vase and have a flying head follow you for x amounts of seconds that can fly through walls and will instantly down you when hit" is breaking that trinity as it would create custom chasing scenario's.But there are 2 things about that:
1: It is not inherently what people complained about. (Which is simultaneously also not a real rebuttal to the idea of trying to break the trinity)
2: That through such solutions that try to play around with moving variables are significantly less likely to ever tackle core issues with the game, where as the part mechanic does address core issues of the game; namely death-efficiency, and is one of the most perfect methods at doing so.
(I mentioned leveraging time somewhere in the OP and the effects of survivor death + the example about side-objectives needing to have interplay between each other. The vase example wouldn't have any of such elements.) -
@Edys said:
no, one event is a keyDown (unhook), one is a keyUp (generator/healing).
this is the difference between a m1 holding and a m1 pressing.
Gen tapping is still a keyUp event.The only exception is the struggle phase on the hook, but guess what... there's still a progress bar, and would be criticized just the same.
You can cancel unhooking. It's not on pressing; in order to progress, you need to hold for all 3.
-
Well, language is communal, so lets see.
What?
I asked you what the definition of a vehicle was and you showed me a car. That's not communal. A car is not the definition of a vehicle.Now pick one from your poll, because I only care about YOUR definition, not mine (:
-
Pseudo Code:
void Doing a generator:
if m1 = true (on a generator)
x = x + 1 * delta time
if x = 80
generator = done.void Healing:
if m1 = true (on teammate)
x = x + 1 * delta time
if x = 16
healing = done.void Unhooking:
if m1 = true (on hooked survivor)
x = x + 1 * delta time
if x = 2
unhook = done.Yes; yes it's a shorter generator. Because the shorter duration for the attached reward is shorter and that's literally the only difference.
-
I asked for the definition of what exactly makes something distinct from doing a generator. (Simple question)
-
@Edys said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Which means that everything opposite to this is you doing a gen. Sounds like a ridiculous definition.except that is exactly what you are not getting.
"doing a gen" in the context of this discussion is equivalent to "m1 holding". So yes, even "healing someone" is not that different than "doing a gen": which is exactly the point.You wanted a definition of something "different than doing a gen":
an objective that does not imply the holding of a button in order to be achieved.saving someone from a hook for example.
healing or cleansing a totem, instead, are basically "doing a gen", even with their difference on timing / skill checks / regression... they still are m1 holding.Unhooking is also a gen. It's a shorter gen LOL. It's all a progression bar; ranging from 0 to infinite seconds.
When people ask for a second objective, they weren't arguing about the elimination of M1 all together. Or at least I cannot find it in the linked post:https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/46450/why-do-survivors-want-extra-objectives/p1
From what people claim about the second objective:
I think mandatory things will always be stale. Pick up this so you can fix that is what it boils down to>
response: Not necessarily. If you have enough variety, it could certainly alleviate the staleness to a decent degree.Repair Gens
Look for chests
Sabotage Hooks
Find totems
Heal other survivors
Gain tokens for certain perks
Unhooks
Look for the hatch
Heal self and others
Disarm bear traps and hag marks
Open the exit gates
etc...And yet you spend half of the game holding M1 at a gen
See? People didn't challange the idea behind progress bars as you pretend they are xD
They don't want to sit still for 80 seconds. They want to be able to move inbetween and still do their main objective.Sure, but killers can't have more things to do, unless survivors do. Because at the moment, time is already so sparse on the killers side that completing the objectives they already have, can be difficult.
You can look at the debate yourself, but trying to claim that people challange the idea behind progress bars al together has little to do with the second objective debate. That is not why people brought it up.
The reason is that they want to be able to move in between (like switching between totems and gens etc) while that still THEM being them doing the main objective.
-
No; that is the basis of a definition. Everything that does not conform to a definition is not part of that definition.
You cannot know what is meant by a vehicle by staring at a car. If you stare at the car then you might think all vehicles are cars, meaning that a plane is not a vehicle.
This is the basis for language?
-
For saying that an example does not equal a definition?