LordGlint
LordGlint
About
- Username
- LordGlint
- Joined
- Visits
- 10,121
- Last Active
Comments
-
Theres something Id like to point out that i feel alot of people dont quite understand...Killers are expected to apply pressure to survivors to keep them from getting gens done. Often times, this means either downing and hooking survivors rapidly, or juggling chasing and attacking multiple survivors so none feels safe enough to devote any real time to just cranking out gens. A killer failing to do this by staying in chases against individual survivors for too long and allowing their teammates to knock out gens results in the killer being "Gen-rushed".
On the flip side however, if the killer doesnt feel any pressure to leave the area of the hooked survivor and feels confident enough to stay in the general area of the hook to either "camp" or quickly chase and down an injured survivor off the hook before they can heal and/or run to a safer location...Thats on the survivor side. Apply pressure to the killer to leave the area. It works both ways.
Besides that however, the killer (unless feeling morally ablidged not to) is going to go after the easier target. If I as killer spot one guy running to the cow-tree and another to an open area where all the pallets have been broken always... Im not going to give it a 2nd thought about which one has been hooked more recently. Im going to put in damage as quickly and as often as possible in an attempt to apply pressure.
If you are injured, either get healed ASAP or if there isnt sufficient time, get to a safer location. If you are the rescuer, avoid unsafe rescues. If you are in a situation where the unhooked teammate doesnt have sufficient time to get healed or get to a safe location before the killer hits them, consider taking a hit to either slow the killer down or avert aggro. Flashlight blind the killer to force him to look away and maybe lose sight of the target, litterally ANYTHING.
Point of this being... punishing someone for taking opportunities presented to them or blaming them for taking them is pointless and silly. Ive had survivors who literally got off the hook and ran into me around the corner, then got pissed off that i would dare attack them. By this i mean they actually made collision, lol. I feel like survivors really need to start thinking of themselves as part of a 4 person team instead of 4 individuals.Take a hit for a fellow survivor if need be, and not just for a WGLF stack. Dont farm points at a fellow survivor's expense. If you feel like you got tunneled off the hook, thats not the fault of the killer for hitting you, but your fellow survivors who didnt provide you with enough support in the form of healing, BT, smart unhooks, body blocks, ect.
-
Most of the posts I see anymore are just whining with no actual ideas given. Its easy to just sprout out that the devs CLEARLY are bias towards one side or another and that the must not have tested XYZ change that i dont like/are not good at their game/must be a (insert the side im opposing) main to have come up with this. Its completely pointless and doesnt offer anything to the conversation. If you have a gripe, give actual feedback and suggestions with the thought in the back of your head that it must provide fair chance for either side to succeed.
Now, for the topic at hand of the EGC and the gates being too hard to open for the last survivor. I see afew gripes about it, some with merit. While personally, Ive been able to get out VIA the gate in a last survivor situation already, I do think there can be room for improvement on afew things. IF anything i state you disagree with, please let me know and be specific with your own thoughts behind it (and please tag me so im notified) I think its universally agreed upon for example that gate locations can be a problem, and that brings me to my first point...
-a minimum/maximum distance should be implemented. The devs have been pretty good at implementing this for the hooks, i dont see why doing the same for the gates should really be a problem. While yes, having the gates be too close is a problem because faster killers can easily patroll them, they at the same time cant have them at completely opposite ends of the map, to make it possible for the slower killers too.
-secondly, the lights on the gate could be altered to make it so the first light doesnt light up til the gate is...lets say...50% powered. This would allow a survivor to power a gate to about 45%, wait for the killer to patrol the gate, and finish it up once the killer leaves again. ATM, the first gate I feel gives away the survivors presence too early. If the killer sees a light on, theyre going to stick around, and if the survivor has to cross the map for the other gate...they're likely to just run out of time. Adjusting the lights allows for a stealthier approach to opening the gates and would be usable against even the faster killers.
-Make Remember Me not work on the last survivor alive. With the current iteration of EGC, remember me saw a nerf due to the strain it would put on the last survivor having to open the gate without another survivor being there to keep the killer occupied. The Idea of having one person be sneaky enough to open a gate that takes 50 seconds, while on the EGC 2 minute timer and with no teammates to preoccupy the killer... The devs rightfully saw this as a problem. I dont think theyre actions toward that problem was the answer though. The perk still extinguishes all hope of a last survivor opening a gate, but now just feels worthless in team setting. I would suggest reverting the nerf, but making the last survivor immune to it.
-Another thing Id like to remind people is that the perk Wake up DOES infact exist, lol. This perk would ease the burden of the last survivor to open the gates. I do however feel like a slight buff COULD be implimented, maybe going from 15% to 25%. This would make it take 15 seconds total for a survivor to open the gate, as opposed to 17.39. I like to keep it at whole numbers...
-
Eliminating hatch grabs was to eliminate the hatch standoff stalemate of the survivor waiting for the killer to hit them, thus being in a cooldown for them to safely jump vs the killer waiting for the survivor to jump, thus being able to grab. This made it so the first to act was the loser, causing SUPER long stalemates. with the current setup, its the opposite. First to act wins. Apparently in the case of a tie, with both animations acting at the same time, the killer is favored. The instances your talking about with the killer closing hatch mid animation just sounds like the killer walked over as the 3rd survivor was being sacrificed, saw the final survivor standing on the hatch and closed it as soon as it opened. I dont see why this is a problem.
Situations like this would require the killer to leave have time to leave the 3rd survivors hook, travel to the hatch, strike the survivor twice and recover from the 2nd swing in time for the pickup before the hatch opens. Favoring the survivor would simply allow them to either sit on the hatch right before it opens or hide nearby and be able to bumrush it as soon as its opening with no counterplay. Im open to other's opinions, this is just my thought process. BVHR likes to give everyone a chance as winning or losing all the way up to the point they actually win or lose, so making a situation like this that would completely favor one side with a 100% success would be something theyd want to avoid in that thought pattern. As a survivor, if your sitting on the hatch waiting for it to open and the killer is approaching, you have the option of running. This would divide the killers attention between chasing you and closing the hatch (which forces them to look down). Might not be much, but its still a CHANCE to escape a chase and find another way out...or just dont be in the open before hatch is open, lol. If you reverse the roles however, the killer doesnt HAVE an option B. He HAS to travel from the hook to the hatch, strike you twice and recover from 2 bloodswipe animations before the hatch opens. Making the hatch closing mechanic overwrite the hatch jump just makes since imo. I WOULD very much like to hear other thoughts though and your reasons behind them.
-
The problem I see with this is that then people would be free to ALWAYS use the best stuff. Damn near EVERY game with huntress for example would be an Iri head, or EVERY toolbox used would be commodious. While Ill admit, that blowing the BPs i get after each game and being forced to buy 5 brown EXP offerings feels kinda #########... The alternative would be too much access to the really good stuff. People already claim that they see sweaty killers all the time... Well, imagine if they get the really good addons and red mori EVERY game. On the flip side, Killers complain about Gen-rush and instaheals... Best toolboxes and instaheal medkits EVERY GAME.
Maybe a possible solution to avoid this would be to increase the cost of the really powerful stuff to the point that it wouldnt be possible to flip the BPs gained from 1 match to replace them every game. what if we made it easier to blow through bloodwebs for the sake of obtaining perks, while maybe slapping a hefty BP cost on things like Iri heads or syringe. have maybe 4 perks available on smaller bloodwebs, while keeping the OP stuff on the outer slots to avoid making someone HAVE to get them. Maybe put a 50k pricetag on that Iri head. Just a thought.
-
try using lithe as well. This 3 perk combo will allow you to quietly vault a window, and quickly get distance while leaving no track of which way ya went.
-
Not really. I'm actually suggesting this AS a killer main. Currently people use "hook gymnastics" to give that signal. The problem is, teammates can be trolls and ignore you.xmenfanatic said:@LordGlint said:
What if you set it up so the hooked survivor could hold M2 or something, which would show him as a different aura color to other survivors and won't allow an unhook. The potential rescuer won't get a surprise, and you can use this as a code to let your teammates know killer is too close.It’s a neat idea, especially since auras are canonically a form of communication between survivors. But I think if you can directly communicate where a killer is while on the hook that there should be a bit of a negative side to it, a.....sacrifice.
Maybe the killer should also see the aura change if you press the button. Or if a survivor is activating it, then it highlights other survivor auras that are within 4-6 meters? As a survivor, it would be amazing, but I feel it would be slightly unfair when playing Killer.
-
What if you set it up so the hooked survivor could hold M2 or something, which would show him as a different aura color to other survivors and won't allow an unhook. The potential rescuer won't get a surprise, and you can use this as a code to let your teammates know killer is too close.
-
What would be the counter play to this as a survivor?HatCreature said:The whole point of this Killer isn't to down people it is to waste their time with Mending therefore they don't do Gens. But of course, they didn't do a great job at fixing that because Deep Wounds will still be underpowered because it only takes like 10 seconds and BAM, yeah the timer goes down during that time but SO WHAT, it won't go down below 99%. The fix is an illusion of a fix, it sounds good but ultimately defeats itself, like ha ha you thought you were dying but it was a joke. Making Mend take longer or being affected by Sloppy Butcher would help, taking out the 99% safety measure would also help.
Of course, none of that really matters when he can't catch up to people because he's slow and he still needs his power to do that but can't down people with his power so even if they fix his power to effectively distract people, he still can't catch up.
I propose, what if when you go into Frenzy you have the option of pushing a secondary attack button that DOES NOT afflict Deep Wounds but a normal hit? Whether that person has Deep Wounds or not does not matter because you automatically lose your power like normal and get stunned because it counts as a normal hit. This way we can use our power to catch up and hit people OR inflict Deep Wounds when we see a group of people.
-
While getting rid of the double stun is HUGE IMO, I think the real irony is that they managed to (admitted super minor) Nerf Freddy again, lol.
-
It was never NEEDED, but now there's no threat of it. That's in no way a good change for doc
-
powerbats said:
@LordGlint said:
Vietfox said:Kinda off topic: was i the only doctor not running NC?
No, I only just recently got NC. Still though, even if not using it... The threat of it can change survivor gameplay.
Anyone that knew how to play wouldn't try and snap out of it within his terror radius anyways because the skill check windows would be smaller. There was also the fact that all he had to do was get you within his terror radius and you'd probably jump up and scream interrupting it if he's in treatment mode.
I never ran it on him because of those reasons, it wasn't worth the perk slot for the drawbacks.I'd say it's debateable either way. A survivor freshly in madness 2 isn't going to immediately go back to 3 from static field alone, giving you time to leave. On the other hand, you may feel inclined to snap out of it asap to avoid the random screaming that comes with it.
-
No, I only just recently got NC. Still though, even if not using it... The threat of it can change survivor gameplay.Vietfox said:Kinda off topic: was i the only doctor not running NC? -
They probably only did this because too many people were comparing snap out of it to mending, and they don't wanna put nurses calling on mending
-
Definitely understand, but still gotta refrain from profanity and such. Tone is hard to convey through text.HatCreature said:I wasn't trying to be irritated, I was just baffled that I wasn't being clear, I thought I was better than that so I was disappointed in myself for not being clear.
-
Try not to get too worked up Hat. That's how discussions quickly turn to argument s here and threads get derailed.HatCreature said:@Dreamnomad said:
@HatCreature said:
@Dreamnomad said:
@LordGlint said:
@Dreamnomad said:
I think you are more or less trading one kind of stand off for another. Personally, I would rather have a survivor get a hatch than play immersion with one survivor wasting my time. I could play a whole other match in the time it takes to hunt one survivor crawling around from bush to bush.In what way would this be a standoff?
.If the killer finds either the chest containing the key or the hatch then the killer can camp them. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between the killer camping the hatch when it's open vs camping the hatch when it is closed when a survivor has a key? Unless the killer is able to insta down the survivor, nothing. You still have a stupid hatch stand off.
If you wanted to actually solve the hatch stand off issue with a key then there is a way, but killers won't like the answer. The answer is to have 2 keys and 2 hatches. Then it is impossible for one killer to force a hatch stand off. That would also end the game faster since it wouldn't take the survivor as long to find either.
Like I was saying earlier in the post, once the Survivor has the key they need to be caught BEFORE they reach the Hatch. The killer is NOT ALLOWED to win at the hatch if they have the key. If the Survivor reaches the Hatch and presses the button to open it they just go in period, even if the Killer hits them once they go in, even of the Survivor is hit with a chainsaw and gets downed at the hatch they can still press the button and they just go in, this scenario does not allow a Hatch grab. Either you catch them before they reach it or that's it.
Other than that, if someone brings in a key or randomly finds a key then the Hatch grab is allowed.
Except that isn't how the game works. A survivor in the dying state can't interact with objects and killers can interrupt hatch escapes. Unless you are suggesting that a counter-intuitive exception be made that is different than everything else in the game. Cause, you know, that is good game design.
Yes, for the third time, that is exactly what I am proposing. take out the hatch grab, let them use the key in the downed state, I can't believe it was not clear. Yes change the entire system so this works in this instance, everything they have in this game that prevents a Survivor escaping through the Hatch WILL NOT WORK, is just taken out of the game completely in this very instance.
In the stance where someone brings in a key or randomly find one no, the hatch grab is still there and yes, technically that is a hatch standoff but keys aren't common so it would not be as common as it is now, in this particular case it would be rare and why the [BAD WORD] would you even do a hatch standoff at that point unless you just wanted to spend your free time doing it which is completely ok.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
@LordGlint said:
@Dreamnomad said:
I think you are more or less trading one kind of stand off for another. Personally, I would rather have a survivor get a hatch than play immersion with one survivor wasting my time. I could play a whole other match in the time it takes to hunt one survivor crawling around from bush to bush.In what way would this be a standoff?
.If the killer finds either the chest containing the key or the hatch then the killer can camp them. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between the killer camping the hatch when it's open vs camping the hatch when it is closed when a survivor has a key? Unless the killer is able to insta down the survivor, nothing. You still have a stupid hatch stand off.
If you wanted to actually solve the hatch stand off issue with a key then there is a way, but killers won't like the answer. The answer is to have 2 keys and 2 hatches. Then it is impossible for one killer to force a hatch stand off. That would also end the game faster since it wouldn't take the survivor as long to find either.
In the proposed solution, camping a chest isnt going to do any good, because theres no way to know if it has a key and the survivor could just do something else, while camping the hatch would also be pointless because the killer wouldnt be able to grab the survivor.
-
@Orion said:
@LordGlint said:
That would solve the standoff i suppose, but I think HatCreature's idea solves for alot more issues than JUST that. Plus i think in the event of a skillcheck battle like you suggest, the host, aka the killer, would have the advantage. The slightest lag could be what ends up deciding it.Skill checks are client-side. Lag doesn't factor into it.
Oh, I hear people claiming the needle jumps. Like i said, Im a killer main mostly so...new info to me. I still think HatCreature's idea solves other problems though. Ive had too many games where the last guy is already sitting on the hatch when the 3rd guy dies/DCes and I have litterally NO chance at downing him. At the same time, Ive had too many games as survivors where people give up on actually doing the objective if its down to 2. I think Hat's idea could help with both.
-
@M2Fream said:
I want my idea to be implemented.
Do you want skill?
How about a skill check battle!
When both people are within 8m of the hatch, the killer can hit the survivor to activate the skill check battle. The survivor will try to jump in the hatch but the killer will grab their ankle. Both people will get the same skill checks that get more difficult.If the killer fails a skill check, the survivor kicks them in the face and crawls into the hatch.
If the survivor faiks a skill check, the killer will yank them back and perform a mori.This is the most fair way.
That would solve the standoff i suppose, but I think HatCreature's idea solves for alot more issues than JUST that. Plus i think in the event of a skillcheck battle like you suggest, the host, aka the killer, would have the advantage. The slightest lag could be what ends up deciding it.
-
@The_Crusader said:
HatCreature said:@Avariku said:
how would this not just hand the hatch standoff to the killer?
what's keeping the killer from camping the chest?
how is this not catering to the killer who couldn't be bothered to slug the second to last survivor?
How can the Killer camp a chest that was randomly spawned? They don't know where it is, aren't there 3 chests normally? Oh look I found a 4th chest and it's opened, or was it a normal chest, do they have the key already or are they still looking for the right chest?
Also, they can camp the hatch but because there is no Hatch grab the Survivor can run up to the killer, get hit, use the key and get in. If the Killer just stands there trying to bait them or if they get there first it does not matter because in that scenario there is no Hatch grab, the Killer cannot win the scenario when the Survivor finds the key unless they catch Survivor before they get to the hatch.
I see what you're saying but it would still become a chest standoff in a number of situations.
Also as I explained in another thread the hatch needs to stay survivor sided.
The Killer couldn't camp the chest, because they wouldn't know if that chest that they're camping even has a key in it to begin with. Even if the chest DID have the key, that would simply open up the generators if the killer is refusing to move from that spot. The current hatch standoff problem is due from 2 people standing on the hatch and knowing that if either act first, they lose. This simply wouldn't result in a standoff. If you see the killer standing by a chest not moving, find another chest, or do a Gen. The mere existence of the hatch is what prevents the killer from patrolling the last 3 gens and making it impossible for a solo survivor to get the last one done and escape. If the Killer moves from the chest, assuming its the one with the key, and checks the gens to make sure the survivor isnt doing them and being sneaky...it takes like 10 seconds to search a chest. Thats by far more time than it takes the killer to check the remaining Gens for progress. In this solution, the ability to grab a survivor from the hatch would be removed in exchange for more time to find the survivor before they reached an open hatch. Theres no standoff here.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
I think you are more or less trading one kind of stand off for another. Personally, I would rather have a survivor get a hatch than play immersion with one survivor wasting my time. I could play a whole other match in the time it takes to hunt one survivor crawling around from bush to bush.In what way would this be a standoff? Yes, the killer would still have to find the survivor, but there wouldn't be any standoff like there is now. This would also HOPEFULLY deter survivors from just waiting at the hatch while their teammates are trying to finish generators. Ive seen games where one survivor will purposefully allow his teammate to die, often times even purposefully screwing their teammate over so they WILL die, so they can jump in the hatch that they spotted earlier. I actually think the suggestion given by HatCreature would improve the situation for both sides. Im a killer main, dabble abit as a survivor. While i hate when survivors get what feels like a Freebee escape after only doing 2 gens, I understand that its also impossible for a solo survivor to finish the last generator if there is no other option of escape present.
Currently, anytime it gets to the 3rd survivor going down, I as the killer must always assume the last guy is currently sitting on the hatch, or close enough to run to it as soon as his buddy dies. This results in me slugging the 3rd to have a CHANCE at the 4th, assuming i can find and down him before the 3rd bleeds. Ive had survivors DC as soon as they go down, so their buddy can jump right in. If these changes were to actually be implemented... I could just hook the 3rd guy and have time to hunt the 4th. Since escape via hatch isnt insured, the 4th would also have reason to be a teammate and help the 3rd off the hook.
-
The devs are at least open to a change though, otherwise they wouldn't be trying out things like closing the hatch. Talking here might result in a solution that is deemed fair by the community, and the devs might be willing to test.George_Soros said:@HatCreature said:
@George_Soros said:
@HatCreature said:
Everyone hates the waiting game of who wins the hatch standoff,Speak for yourself. Many of us just hit the survivor, get our 300 points and let him go. No poitn wasting time with hatch standoff.
Also, your proposed solution only prolongs the hide-and-seek endgame. As a survivor, I don't mind that part too much: crawling around the map avoiding the killer has a bit of excitement, but as killer it's quite boring. What you suggest would just double the time spent looking for the last guy.
There's only one change that should be done to the hatch: this crazy idea of giving 2000 extra BP for a hatch escape should be removed. It often makes survivors look for it even when gates are open, wasting the killer's time. Now that's a bad incentive. If anything, there should be a BP penalty for a hatch escape. After all, the survivor kinda takes the easy route out.
Ah yes, the quiet lonely search for the last Survivor who doesn't know where the Hatch is, I get those but they don't usually last that long. On large maps like Rotten Fields that can be a HUGE problem with this idea, perhaps every 15 seconds the Killer gets a location similar to the Doc's giving away their approximate spot? Or maybe that perk Spies From The Shadows is made base game at that point or Whispers, the Perks themselves would still exist but at this point it would just be something added to the Killer automatically. That way the Killer has help looking for that last little mouse scurrying about.
I think we look at this whole thing very differently. If the last survivor is uninjured, I have no problem with him having an easier time finding an alternate escape. I believe that sweet 4K is supposed to be significantly harder than a 3K. And I explained my view on hatch standoff above, though I understand not everyone sees it that way.
At any rate, discussions like this are probably moot. There are soooooooooo many of us players suggesting/asking/hysterically demanding changes to the game
I don't suppose devs can even consider, let alone integrate most of these ideas, especially since they often conflict each other... -
Could also give the killer the same plunderers instinct buff as survivor, much like the pig can see her own jigsaw boxes. Knowing where to patrol can help.
-
I think the change suggested would offer a reason for survivors to keep trying to fix Gens instead of screwing their partner while waiting by the hatch. Also, while it is true that finding the last guy if your not using detection perks is hard... That's only because there is no objective they have to do. Personally, I run whispers for the last guy.
-
Not just that, but it's also limiting the use of normal keys
-
I had a very similar idea, only instead of a new chest... All open chests would close and a new type of key placed in one of them while the others stay empty. Could also give the survivor a sort of plunderers instinct, which would make it similar to the pig's jigsaw boxes. One other thing to point out... Even if the killer camp's the box containing the key... Could always do a Gen.
As it stands now, when 2 ppl are left, it always feels like at least one will give up on Gens and wait for his buddy to die, cuz getting out via hatch now is easier than doing a Gen with a partner. This solution would also relieve the need to slug the 3rd as the killer cuz, you know the last guy can't just jump in the second his buddy dies. This will give the killer a chance, where as now days... That 4th guy is already on top the hatch.