Comments

• In response to GoshJosh

  
  

  I appreciate your response because I can tell you're passionate about the game. I am too.

  I'll go through your points in order and try to clear up some things because I might have been vague about some points in the original post.

  My idea is based around the concept of rewarding teamwork and punishing selfishness on the survivor side. My general feeling of the game as a survivor is that I am alone when entering a match. I don't play SWF so I feel like I'm at a disadvantage. I want to make all survivors feel like they are working towards a common goal and can depend on their team. Otherwise, it's just an unbalanced 1v1 game with other people inhabiting the map.

  The killer getting half of the bloodpoints for zero kills is so they would get a consolation prize if they got destroyed in a game. I've played killer a bunch and depending on where I was in the matchmaking system I would either get 3-4 kills every game, or 0-1 kills every game. Assuming the matchmaking works and people are matching with others who are relatively close in skill, a competent killer at that skill level should get 2 kills on average (ideally, of course). I don't feel players should be rewarded for playing poorly. They shouldn't be punished (as in the zero bloodpoints scenario), but they shouldn't receive the same amount of bloodpoints as if they had done well against the survivors. It's a competition and I feel that every game should have an official result: win, lose, or draw. It shouldn't be vague.

  This is a point where I was unclear in the original post. The suggested BP multiplier would be applied after the match, similar to how BP offerings work. So whatever points you earn in the match are multiplied after the fact. All players start that match eligible to get the top tier (x4) multiplier. If you're the first killed, you get the lowest tier (x1/4) multiplier applied to your score, and the remaining 3 are eligible to get the 2nd tier (x2) multiplier. If you're second killed, you get the 2nd lowest tier (x1/2) multiplier applied to your score, and the remaining 2 are eligible to get the middle tier (x1) multiplier. Basically, the players who get killed would get the multipliers applied to them starting from the bottom of the list, while the remainder are only eligible for the multipliers from the top of the list and drop down the list as more survivors are killed. It would be as easy to implement as bloodpoint offerings. The devs would just need to make variables for how many survivors are alive at the time of each player's death and calculate their bloodpoints based on that with if/then functions.

  When you die | Your BP multiplier | Highest multiplier available to remaining survivors

  Start of match (no deaths) - - - - - - - - All are eligible for x4

  You're first to die - - - - - - x1/4 - - - - - - - x2

  You're second to die - - - x1/2 - - - - - - - x1

  You're third to die - - - - - x1/2 - - - - - - - x1/2

  You're last to die - - - - - - x1/4 - - - - - - - x1/4 (or x1, see below)

  I would even think that the final survivor would get the normal amount of bloodpoints if they've been in the match alone for a while. The game already calculates the in-game time, so it shouldn't be difficult to reference that variable in consideration with how quickly the 'team' was reduced in numbers.

  Yeah it's a grind. I'm a survivor main so I get it. But that depends on your goals for the game. If your goal is to unlock all perks for all characters, or to get the "best" perks on one survivor, it's gonna feel like a long time. But if your goal is to have fun and not be frustrated every match, then I feel like my suggestion is valid. If you play as a survivor and the team works together, everyone benefits. I want players to actually care about helping the other players since it will affect their total BP instead of just Altruism (all players survive, all players are rewarded for it). If the killer dominates, they have a fun time and are rewarded for it, but will hopefully move up in matchmaking so they face a harder challenge. My goal is to have fun (and do some challenges in the meantime), and I feel the lack of a clear win condition makes it less fun. Without "winning", it's literally only a grind. This is why every player has their own arbitrary amount of concern for the result of each match, and I see that as a weakness in the game. My ideal game would be one where everyone puts effort into the role they chose (killer/survivor) and actually care about the result of each game. And my suggestion would enforce that thinking because your personal progress would be determined by how well your team does. Right now there is no reason for anyone to care about anything except their own bloodpoints. If a system like this is put in place, every survivor would be risking their own bloodpoints if they didn't find some way to benefit the team.

  The zero BP for a killer if they get 1 kill is entirely an anti-tunnel/facecamp method. It could be reduced BP instead of none. But if I'm playing as a killer and I'll get punished more for camping at the hook and making sure that one survivor dies, than if I were to just let them all go, I would let them all go. I'd still get BP, although not as much because I didn't perform as well.

  in How do you know if you won? Comment by Muckduck August 14, 2021