NeverSolus
NeverSolus
About
- Username
- NeverSolus
- Joined
- Visits
- 537
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074444#Comment_4074444
There is meta build since 2017 and it follows dead hard, ds, unbreakable, plus other very good perk like before their nerf it was adrenalin, hope or now there can be shoulder the burden, still resilience or deliverence. Build like this has antislug potencial because slugging is only working against teams that dont have tools to deal with it and coordination like trying 4man slug sabbo squad where two people minimaly have antislug perks is mission impossible, unbreakable is perk that even when if one survivor has it can totaly shift the outcome of the game and that perk does this since bill got into fog.
I ran tests on this last night (Still not much of a fan of slugging, all the same) and found this to be erroneous. It's anecdotal admittedly but the build I used didn't much care about unbreakable. I regularly saw it and regularly ignored it entirely as it only triggers one time. I regularly had to down a survivor around six times each on average.
As a result of slugging however I bypassed on average 25% of total survivor perks in the games as no hook states didn't trigger their ability to use said perk. The trade off was acceptable. Dead hard couldn't work as no hook states triggered, and deliverence obviously won't do much. Unbreakable let a person get up a single time, but I just downed them again and got an extra surge trigger out of the deal.
I would say the build presented isn't really an anti-slug meta build, it's a meta build that has a two perks that benefit from facing a slugger. But dead hard and DS won't work at all due to no hook states. This only makes it more logical a choice then to slug if DS and DH are both in the meta, wouldn't it?
For the record in the ten matches I played slugging build on, it was actually more fun to player Killer as I got to skip the stress of hooking, flashlights, flashbangs, DS, hook spread, etc etc and just focus on the reason I load the game : Chasing and downing. Granted that also came with the counterpoint of feeling bad for the people I'm consistently downing. It was an … awkward, experience. On one hand the game felt legitimately more enjoyable to play, on the other the process itself felt grimey. -
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074444#Comment_4074444
As you pointed out a slug build is effective, but I'd argue it's only effective because it's not meta
I don't really agree with that. Even if the survivors had a good idea they might face it, it's still effective against most players, especially mid-skill parties and soloers. I've been in matches where people have had anti-slug perks and the end result is the slugging just going on longer. I've also gone up against teams running anti-slug and sabo and I still win most of the time, even with them doing quick recoveries with WGLF, Soul Guard, and MfT. These perks just prolong the inevitable if the killer isn't a baby or bad. If a team is focusing solely on getting up from slugs they aren't doing gens, and they will lose eventually. Something being meta also doesn't mean people will counter properly. Pain res DMS is meta. Every time I play I see someone not let go of a gen before a hook.
Wouldn't this just make slugging vs. anti slugging be another potential meta choice, just as gen slow-down vs gen speed meta was a meta?
The difference is an anti-slug meta is solely in response to the actions and builds of one side. Survivors dont bring chase builds or gen builds with the idea of countering the other players builds, they bring them to be efficient at a task. The "anti" in anti-slug is the issue. It's purely reactive to the other player.
You're also talking about gen speedup vs gen slowdown as though they're even. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say half of killers run anti-gen builds, but half of survivors don't run speedup.
If slugging was to be "legitimized" then basekit anti-slug would be needed. As it is now, the risk is minimal because they can't pick themselves up. If a slug could stand up after 45s or something, that would make lengthy slugging much less valuable. I, again, don't think you should have to incentivize normal gameplay, you should deincentivize unpleasant and unliked gameplay instead.
You bring up talking about this without emotion and you're not the first, but you can't cut it out with a scalpel. If you look at a high-emotion thing like pvp gaming from a clinical view, you end up with a game thats perfect on paper—and a miserable product no one wants to play in reality.
My ER as survivor for the last 30 days is 54.36%. That's a pretty above average number, and I don't abandon, so it's genuine. Am I having fun with the role? No, not really. I've been dealing with a lot of tunneling of teammates and a lot of slugging lately, and I'm often the only escape, solely because my current build makes me more slippery. Meanwhile, my 30 day KR is 67.27%. Not as good as the survivor one, and it's been declining lately, but I'm having more fun as killer because I'm not at the mercy of anyone's whims or cruelties. Winning isn't what everyone wants. It's how things feel that matters to many, if not most. So if you go against people who want to win at all costs and don't care if they make you feel bad in the process, that doesn't encourage you to engage. You have the odd person here and there that says they like being tunneled because it's "engaging" (I don't really trust these people but that's a different matter) but you'll never see anyone saying they love being slugged. It's utterly unfun for four out of five people in the match.
My opinon is that slugging was never meant to be as strong as it was and it just wasn't factored in, and then grew into something that's know hard to take away. It even says on the loading screen that the killer's primary objective is to hook survivors. When I first started playing this game as killer, it never once occured to me to leave someone on he ground on purpose. I still vividly recall my puzzlement when I first started playing survivor and it kept happening to me. As far as I'm concerned, egerious, intentional slugging should be punished in some way. I've suggested for a while that a good option is for survivors to be able to start manually speeding up their beeldout timers after a certain point. Bleedouts already don't count as kills on the killer's personal stats. That should be made more clear on the scoreboard as well, and with BP deductions.
I think you're right in several ways, particularly regarding keeping emotion out of it. Though I try, I am no less flawed than anyone else in that regard but it is an endeavor. The only points you present I personally disagree with are on the meta questions extrapolation so I won't dig in to it at risk of sounding like I'm being antagonistic.
That being said, thank you, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I particularly find the last paragraph interesting. While I'm not overly concerned on the initial point of whether it was intended or not, I am fascinated by the rest. I do think slugging was entirely unintentional initially, but it seems like the more people talk the more I am hearing "Punish it." Which was never the point of the thread, nor honestly one I am surprised to see. Partially because of the emotional responses you pointed out. I am not against the idea of punishing slugging, but as I said above, since BHVR has not done so then I am assuming it is either not in alignment or too difficult to implement. Thus, I take to honey instead.
Ultimately any actual actionable take-away and official stance from BHVR such as making it a rule to not slug and it will be considered bannable, by example, would be sufficient to end the conversation entirely. -
@cogsturning said:
Slugging isn't always a good move. A team on comms that realizes what the killer is doing could just fan out and sit on gens and leave a teammate down for as long as possible. Going for unhooks at the right moment is riskier and has less of a time window, especially since the hook location is static and constantly broadcasted, whereas a slug could crawl away if left alone and be easily and quietly picked up.
The issue, to me, isn't that killers need more incentives to hook (there's already plenty), it's that they need less incentive to slug. If we'd gotten the anti-slug from the ptb, we'd be in a better place right now. Tunneling is at least counterable with skill against most killers. Slugging is a bigger issue to me. A soloq team going against someone with a slugging-specific build doesn't stand much of a chance unless the killer is bad.
As I posted to Jesterkind: Given what you've said, do you think slugging is more or less legitimate as a result of the inherent risks?
As you pointed out a slug build is effective, but I'd argue it's only effective because it's not meta. Meta survivor builds don't tend to include anti-slugging. If Meta survivor builds did include anti-slugging, I suspect we'd see less slugging and more objective oriented slowdowns. Wouldn't this just make slugging vs. anti slugging be another potential meta choice, just as gen slow-down vs gen speed meta was a meta?
If both are simply different meta's, do you think we should be encouraging and adjusting them or just letting them take darwins course?
Legitimately asking, I'm curious as to your opinion. -
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074435#Comment_4074435
When it comes to incentives versus nerfs or active disincentives, it's important to look at the sheer strength of what you're trying to fix in general too.
For example, incentives not to tunnel will never work because tunnelling is at its base just far, far too strong, it's an overpowered cheese strat. People won't be incentivised away from that when it's still an option, they'll just have their cake and eat it too by keeping tunnelling in the back pocket and benefiting from incentives only when it's convenient.If the position we're starting from is that slugging is just as good as hooking (which I'm not entirely in agreement on, just for transparency) then we're rubbing up against that problem. If you only use honey instead of vinegar here, you're not really fixing the core reason people slug.
That's why it's important to recognise that hooking isn't weak and does give you more than just activating slowdown perks, because that's the real comparison being made here- two tools that both do their job, but one's less risky + has a higher likelihood of shutting down more of your opponent's perks.Personally speaking, while I don't view slugging as a HUGE problem, I do think something like those old PTBs with a limited way of picking yourself up in aggressive slugging scenarios would probably be appropriate. That way slugging remains a limited tool you'd use situationally when circumstances demand, but you can't replace hooking with it.
Honestly that part of those PTBs was basically fine the second time around, I think it caught unnecessary strays because of how flawed the anti-tunnel parts were.
For clarity, when you refer to slugging as being a riskier play, do you think it's acceptable for Killers to have the option to make those riskier plays? If it is riskier, then that would insinuate to me that slugging isn't too much of an issue (as others here, cog included, have stated). If that's the case, that is to say that slugging isn't that much of an issue, why engage in considering disincentivizing it?
If it's not an issue because the Killer shoulders the burden (no pun intended) of the riskier play, shouldn't we see such behavior encouraged rather than discouraged?
I'm personally of the camp of honey over vinegar not because I particularly hate slugging I couldn't care less about the actual practice, but because it seems to me that hooks are undervalued. As 100 pointed out, you can take perks to incentivize hooking, but you do have to take them, just as much as you'd theoretically build a 'slug build' to incentivize yourself to slug.
The idea I'm digesting is that it seems awkward to me that a core mechanic (hooking) isn't basekit encouraged enough to surpass the benefits of slugging. I'm unsure of any incentivizations that would work short of having each killer using their own personal incentivization system basekit, and thus it would be burdensome. But I do want to encourage people to make risky plays, and get risky payouts. Playstyles and all that.
So should I, you think, consider Slugging nothing but a risky tactic that should not be encouraged or discouraged?
I do recognize you don't agree with my presented topic regarding slugging being superior, and I won't argue it overmuch, I'm just gathering the data at this point. -
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074429#Comment_4074429
Well, I'd repeat that slugging only provide similar or even sometimes superior metrics if players aren't expecting it. All it takes is the whole team running Unbreakable and slugging's value drops off a cliff.
To the larger point, though, you're still looking in the wrong direction. Considering that hooking as a baseline does its job of slowing the game down and progressing the objective… if slugging does better or even the same, that means slugging is too strong, not that hooking is too weak.
You wouldn't fix the issue with hook incentives, you'd fix it by reigning in slugging so it doesn't function as an alternative anymore. It's only meant to be a specific tool for specific purposes, you shouldn't be able to avoid the game's fundamental interactions with it.I don't think I'm looking in the wrong direction at all - because I think you're right that's another possible option! Hook incentives or an alternative incentive, or alternatively yes slug disincentivizing would also work. I make the assumption admittedly that incentives will be the chosen route as we haven't see disincentivizations come through from PTB Tests in the past.
Either will work, certainly; but anti-slugging has been discussed to death, so I'm wondering if honey might catch the fly in this case.
Also, unbreakable only works once. Maybe if it worked more it would be a more suitable counter to slug builds? Or if it became base kit as is, is that the thought process you're approaching?
Apologies if I sound combative, not the intent, just trying to shave away these outer layers and see if anyone can present an argument as to why to not slug that goes beyond "It won't work" or "It makes you bad person hue hue", and equally a presentation of what would be enough to convert the play. -
@jesterkind said:
There's a major element of the game missing from your rundown here, which is what you get for hooking- it's more than just activating perks, there are basekit benefits to hooking that are very relevant and important to the conversation.
To simplify those benefits, hooking both efficiently progresses your own objective and efficiently slows down your opponent's objective. It's already good at this, spreading pressure this way is as effective as it should be proportional to your skill in keeping it up, and if you just directly buff killers for hooking you run a very real risk of tilting the balance too far towards making killers - especially the stronger ones - far too powerful.
The issue that does exist here isn't that hooking needs to be incentivised over other options, it's that other options can be too good for the effort involved. Slugging is completely fine when it's done in limited, situational ways, but countering very aggressive slugging strats can be dependent on communication and preparing with specific perks ahead of time, which isn't exactly the best spot for something to be in.
To be blunt, the way you fix this issue isn't by adding basekit incentives to hook, it's by just weakening the cheese strat some people employ. It really is that simple.
Something like 9.3's PTB info and bloodlust after hooking could work, to encourage players towards the already good option that currently exists, but even that is a little handhold-y.In the interest of transparency, I don't feel i'm ignoring the 'benefits of hooking' at all. From what I can tell from the community and the math, the point is that hooking does nothing for the killer (outside of perk activation) that slugging cannot do better. Hooking can 'progress your objective', but so does slugging given the bleed-out meter. Hooking can 'spread pressure' but so can knocking someone down, equally if not more so. Hooking 'slows down opponent objectives' but so does slugging.
That's very much the point, actually! Hooking isn't doing anything in these scenarios that slugging does not do with superior metrics. It takes about as much time to unhook someone as it does to get a recovered slug off the ground, by example - in both hook and slug states the survivor on the ground wasn't doing objectives. Therefor, why wouldn't a killer bypass all those potential perk activations by simply bypassing the hook entirely?
The 'End objective' can be completed by slugging or hooking.
The question then, as I'll repose it, is do we think hook incentives would draw people out of slugging being the more optimized gameplay loop? I agree with you in that generic hook incentives will not work, as a 5% haste for 10 seconds on unique hooking (by example) gives a much higher value to Kaneki or Blight than it does to the Twins or Plague.
I'm not even bothering to try defining potential hook incentives here - I'm just asking if killers feel they would effectively counter-act the higher efficiency rate of slugging or if we think another direction is necessary.
For the record I also agree that the bloodlust approach was a bit hand-holdy, but I also think bloodlust is a pointless and ultimately worthless mechanic as it exists today anyway. -
@LordGlint said:
My biggest reason for slugging is generally that it slows down pressure to hook. While yes I could buy myself abit of time by proccing a slowdown perk, it just feels like only working to at best undo the time sink of hooking. Slugging puts you in a position where you could keep multiple survivors down while with hooking... Your giving a giant window to unhook when you pick up almost ensuring youll never have more than one survivor on a hook at a time if the survivor team are paying attention at all.
That's sensible. Do you feel like having incentives to hook could overcome that behavior in you, or would it take something more?
-
@AGM said:
You queued up for the game. Play it out unless you NEED to leave. And if you lose, lose with some grace; you don't automatically become a failure of a human because you lost at a game.
Instead of going to the forums with a nonexistent problem, learn from your experiences. The things that happen in any video game don't matter to your life, so why are you letting it get you? Be nicer to yourself in defeat.
I can tell you 100% that the reaction you are having is what they were trying to achieve. By not being able to control your emotions you gave them what they wanted. I don't condone the way those survivors acted in any way, but on the internet, a little emotional resilience goes a long way.
(And to anyone else reading this in a similar emotional state, please don't take it out on the player(s) in your next game. They had nothing to do with it and don't deserve to feel like crap either.)
This game definitely isn't for everyone. If it's negatively impacting your mental health, don't be afraid of moving on to another game.
I agree with the emotional portion of this, as well as the 'you queued up for a game.' To that extent I'd say survivors shouldn't be able to just next-game on hook or leave at will either - but I don't see that option respected by most folks. Yes I recognize most of the leaving system is to counter-act slugging and the like, but the large majority of botting out I see done is not from slugging but people just getting a killer they don't like to play against, or not liking how the game started.
Either the killer should have equal abandon abilities, or neither party should, barring specific circumstances (4 survivors slugged, for instance, should trigger abandonment freely either way.) I'd say the exit gates being opened should be more than sufficient for a killer to be permitted to abandon without penalty with the exact same positives and negatives a survivor would recieve in event of leaving at that point. A bot wouldn't necessarily be required. The killer just going still until the game ends would be sufficient. -
@mecca said:
No such thing in a weak killer. All killers are winning a majority of the time which means they are too strong.
Killers are meant to be winning the majority of the time, per BHVR. 60% success rate is the metric they aim for. A 'weak' killer would then be any killer (from that metric) that performs under 60%. A 'strong' killer would be one that performs over 60%.
That is, of course, assuming BHVR is balancing in accordance to those statistics as they say they are.
60% also makes sense, as there are four survivors. That means nearly 2 survivor successes per match on average, or simlar to it. Due to the assymmetric nature we can't balance 50/50, as there are (again) 4 survivors and one killer. -
I hate agreeing with you here OP. Sadly it is true that meta are an axiom across all games, and equally each player walks into each match expecting something different for fun. A sweaty killer may go in seeking a 4k or they didn't have fun, a bully-squad may just want to sabo and flashlight the daylights out of the killer or they didn't have fun. Much as I don't particularly care for either of those parties, my enjoyment of the game is not more important than theirs. I'm just not obligate to provide them their custom enjoyment anymore than they are to provide me mine.
Only thing I can do is load up, try to have fun, and accept when the opposition is pursuing their enjoyment in a different fashion from how I do. -
As a killer I'm not against farming, but it has to be earned. The survivors have to be funny, or do something interesting to get me to play along with it. I've encountered a lot who seem entitled to my cooperation and I just 4k when I get that vibe. But doing a puppet show, or making an effort to put cans out for me, etc? I'll typically play along so long as no one is being rude.
I don't have a problem with farming, I just have a problem with the entitlement to it. I keep hearing 'it's an event!' used to justify the expectation, but don't feel particularly moved by it. I have the killers I want at P3, so I don't particularly need to farm. I load up to have fun, or feel challenged. If they can make me have fun without a 4k, good on them they earned the farm. But lack of community BP increase offerings on the event just makes me much less likely to default to cooperation. -
I doubt this is intentional. This would, effectively, butcher most perks in the game for killers, as Killers have more perks that effect survivor stats than survivors have perks to effect killer stats. All this would do is create a meta of gen blocking and slug rushing as anti healing perks, gen slow down perks, etc would become entirely worthless.
-
I'm not overly concerned, and I don't think they'll let it hit killers hardest honestly. The reason being, as discussed in this thread, is that perks cover a huge variety of things. Does Thanaphobia conflict with ruin? Does ruin, as a passive regress, conflict with gen blocking perks? Etc etc. Equally would hyperfocus+Stake-out get hit at all, given they don't technically touch 'gen speed' at all.
I think the BHVR teams only real logical option (and one I honestly assume they will take) will be to start by making categories of effects regardless of the perks as written read, and then go from there. "Gen Slow Down" being a possible tag, for instance, to address all of the gen blocks, regressions, and so on. Equally a "Gen Speed Up" category that would include things like Hyper-Focus + Stake-Out.
Killers are going to be inherently harder to effect as their perks trigger less times than survivor perks, typically anyway. Pain res, by example only triggers 4 times so it becomes a take to balance that with diminishing returns without using time windows. If you use time windows (instances of perk trigger within X Seconds) then it would hit killers harder, but also slap survivors who inherently trigger perks more often across spans of time.
Overall I think this will will happen in the following cadence.
1 - Initial Release is a nightmare, slaughtering balancing, and both survivors and killers alike cry the sky is falling.
2 - Now that diminishing returns are in effect, perk balance can be re-addressed without worrying about run-away effects being stackable and thus destroying balance.
3 - End result will be a more balanced and simplified experience with perks.
It's a tumultuous road to be sure, but one that has been a long time coming. Survivors inherently stack less (I'm a killer main, before someone calls me survivor sided for that comment) because they need to stack them less. Survivor perks often given larger percentage gains than killer ones - 50% on Botany for example. Bigger numbers will make the diminishing returns look worse than they are for survivors, and will feel worse for killers than they are just due to how the small tweaking of percentages will play out. But beyond that, it'll put us all in a better place for a healthier game tomorrow. -
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068903#Comment_4068903
It’s absolutely is a huge amount of work, I agree with that. But killer bots do already exist in 2v8, so it’s not an impossible technology. Whether or not they will ever deem it worth the time or effort however remains to be seen. I know that it may never happen, but I won’t stop advocating for it because I believe it’s an important resource that should be shared amongst all players, not just one role, and that it would help newer players/returning players immensely. I don’t think there are any downside aside from the effort and time.
I would advocate for it, but having seen the way the bots are tweaked in 2v8 makes me wonder if the task isn't self-fulfilled failure. I think there's a solid reason BHVR hasn't just solved the us vs. them arguments by fully botting the killer role out and only balancing accordingly - the bots are just vastly overachieving in X Y Z, but under achieving in M N and O. Nothing that couldn't be hashed out individually of course, but I have my doubts.
I still advocate for it of course, but I just don't think survivors would much enjoy playing against bot killers, even in the event of killer leaving. I'd love to be wrong, as it would create a window through which to avoid alot of the games inherent toxicity. -
You'll find most people on this forum aren't a fan of the idea. It would slow down queue times, 'wouldn't solve anything', etc etc etc. There's continued arguments about whether this is a competitive game (it is) or if it is a party game (it isn't) that always crop up around the discussion as well. Ultimately it's something I'd say keep hoping for, but don't hold your breath. People seem intent to keep to the same system as what's currently employed without the addition of a ranked system.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
Hey folks! I wanted to pop in with some extra context on this to give you a little look at the dev side of things. The timing of when the Killer power icon is shown is a tunable on our side, which means we can make adjustments to this if needed.
We'll be closely watching PTB feedback to keep the team informed about how folks are feeling about this in case adjustments from the PTB are needed!
I'll wait to PTB adjustments before judging this one. As Ryan said, they are building this to be on a sliding scale so they can adjust it if it's too much of a problem. Not overtly concerned on this one as a result.
-
@hermitkermit said:
I am one of the biggest advocates for this. It is such an incredible resource and the fact that only one role has access to it really frustrates me. We all want survivors to be better, but there are over 40+ different killers with different counters, add-ons, along with all the killer perks, survivor perks, and map knowledge. At some point it begins to be unreasonable to expect players to not only absorb all this information, but successfully be able to utilize it to make the best plays with no way to actually practice. For the survivor role it is trial by fire every single game.
I also want to see killer bots added in part so killers could leave games after gate power. That being said, it won't be done. Partially because of how people dislike the idea of that exit-gate situation, but more over because of what you said. "There are 40+ Different killers with different counters, add-on's, along with killer perks."
For a survivor bot you just code a standard bot who interacts with the objects and perks appropriately. It becomes plug and play. For killer however you have to have a dramatically different bot for each individual killer. Instead of making 1 bot, you now have to make 40. It's a huge amount of work. -
It's actually weird to consider without more data.
For instance, an example build of [Pain Resonance], [Corrupt Intervention], [Surge], and [Dead Man Switch] would in theory be entirely unaffected by diminishing returns. None of these perks will ever perk at the same time as the others, and thus diminishing returns would never trigger. Means most four-slow-down perk sets would be unaffected on killer. Unless, that is, time windows are instituted. But if time windows are instituted the diminishing returns would disproportionately hurt survivor perks which often do count on consistent repeated use.
Would also, in theory, not touch combos like [Hyper-Focus], [Stake-Out], [Prove Thyself] as the three interactions are doing different things that would be harder to target with diminishing. Healing speeds are due a slap, but I'm not sure how this would be instituted in a fashion that won't require persnickety application of 'this but not that' tags. Will hurt haste builds on killers sure, but that's about it from what I can sus out at a glance unless again windows of time are instituted in which multiple instances can be nerfed for each use. -
@Ricardo170373 said:
Where are they? i miss their.
If you mean BP - There's uh… There's one running. Right now. At this moment. In time. This temporal location. In this timeline. At the present. Before tomorrow but after yesterday. Right meow.
If you mean XP as in XP XP (I know sounds goofy), then arguably the Blood Moon event gives bonus XP. Not a whole lot, but hey it's something. -
@AlphaYandere said:
Could it be that killers are extremely aggressive during this Bloodmoon? Most of the time, I don’t mind tunneling since I do it myself, but it really feels worse than usual this time. Also, every second match is a Blight who thinks they’re Lilith Omen and plays like there’s a huge prize pool on the line. If you want to sweat that hard, why not just play normal mode?
And honestly, the camping feels even worse than the tunneling. In a SWF it’s not that big of a problem, but in solo queue it’s awful—people just don’t do gens.
Do survivors even check what their teammates are doing on the side? I feel like I’m the only one paying attention to that :(
Overall, it just feels like it gets worse every year with Bloodmoon and even the anniversary events. And why is everyone so selfish with offerings? It’s always Escape Cake or Pudding—or even worse, that ######### eye.
Edit: Why is everyone using hex builds? I get Ruin and myabe Thrill of the Hunt but so often they use 4 Hexes…Why?
People are using hex builds because ruin is strong in the Blood Moon event. Unfortunately, hex builds are somewhat trash in value-return, as survivors can extinguish them and suddenly you have no perks, unlike boons which can be relit. The result is people wanting to run Ruin, feeling they have to make a build out of it.
Thus, [Hex: Ruin], [Thrill of the Hunt], [Hex: Undying], and [Hex: Pentimento] or [Hex: Haunted Grounds] are very popular right now because the build setup gives you ruin, protects ruin temporarily, and makes cleansing totems take much longer. The more time survivors have to spend on totems, the more gens are slowed down, buying the killer time to land hook objectives, tunnel, slug, etc.
It's just a sub-tweet build being employed to slow the match down in response to how fast blood gens complete.
As for the offerings, I too am being selfish now. I've run around 7 or 8 bloody streamers only to hit bully-squads or SWF's who bury me and I get no return for using one. Bloody Streamers are just too rare in the bloodweb now for me to risk throwing them out when I'm seldom seeing others burning them. This is entirely anecdotal mind you, but experience does dictate action. -
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068465#Comment_4068465
Mathematical possibilities and real life occurrences are different though. BHVR has the proper data. Otherwise, all we have is our own experiences, and I've been desperately seeking real-world value in this perk. Every time I've used it it's been essentially useless. Nothing about the outcome of the match changed, and I ended every match with leftover tokens. Every killer match I lose miserably, I scan the scoreboard and it's never there. In fact, those matches usually have little or no gen progression perks. Good players use chase extenders. The people running FT are almost always on the bottom of the scoreboard, and often have Stake Out and Hyperfocus as well. This is mostly a hype-based desperation grab by solo players to try to be useful. And I just don't see it delivering for them in my matches against them, or delivering for me in my own.
Though I agree, to some extent, about hitting greats, it isn't just about veterans vs new players. I have thousands of hours and still miss them, but I'm on console/controller, along with probably half or more of the players, and we have input lag to deal with.
If "unhealthy" means that killers will tunnel more, I just don't believe that. You can't be sure when this perk is in play, or who is using it. Anyone who blames the perk for their actions was already tunneling. It's toolboxes, it's healing builds, it's flashlights, it's sabos, it's healing under hook. FT is just this week's excuse. If "unhealthy" means unfair, well, that's a whole topic, cause this game isn't fair.
My problem with this conversation is how hypocritical, selective, and hyperbolic it's been when the perk 1) is heavily RNG dependent and situational 2) already did what it currently does (rewards survivors for killers doing their objective) yet we're now suddenly mad about it, and 3) actually sucks. Meanwhile, Corrupt, Lethal, and Deadlock are regularly used by killers and are completely free for the killer. Deadlock also activates from survivors compelling an objective, and not just stops a random player's progress, but puts them on the killer's radar, solely because another survivor was successful at something.
I agree with you about emotion though. Though I think some things in this game are about emotion and should be observed through that lense, this isn't one of them. Hypothetical numbers aren't super useful either though. The perk's practical performance is either overtuned or it isn't, and BHVR is the only one that knows.
There was nothing hypothetical about the numbers I was presenting, save for the 1/10th at the end. Those numbers are not hypothetical, they are the direct math. I think what you mean is that using the numbers to shape a hypothetical argument isn't super useful, though, and I'll agree there. It is, however, better than just bickering and throwing things at one another verbally. If numbers reflecting the actual values of X do not make for better discussion, then I fear I don't understand the purpose of conversation.
As pointed out the values are not X and X is final, because this is an asymm with a large number of variables. The numbers are nothing but springboards for conversation and adjustment. If discussion cannot take place around the actual values of X against Y, then every step further from that point is a step further from the actual situation. This isn't a stab at you at all Cog, I appreciate your bounce back on it. You also said something critical.
"If "unhealthy" means that killers will tunnel more, I just don't believe that. You can't be sure when this perk is in play, or who is using it. Anyone who blames the perk for their actions was already tunneling. It's toolboxes, it's healing builds, it's flashlights, it's sabos, it's healing under hook. FT is just this week's excuse. If "unhealthy" means unfair, well, that's a whole topic, cause this game isn't fair."
You're right in what you present here - tunneling will happen anyway as the game is unfair anyway. My use of the word 'unhealthy' was indicative of things that encourage or foster tunneling. It doesn't matter if tunneling already exists, I'd like to avoid adding more driving force behind more. Tunneling and slugging are aberrant tactics, and until such a time as a correction for them is isolated, encouraging them does not seem wise to me. Partially because I hate tunneling nd slugging when I play killer, and find it gets in the way of my enjoyment - so there is bias there.
I also agree that good players use chase extenders, and FT isn't a huge problem - but I do think it contributes towards one. Permanent progression on stages by gradient is (roughly) comparable more directly to permanent injury states however. There's a reason killers do not have access to such things. But seeing things moving into the permanent progress stages direction is concerning because of the carry-on it can create.
Just because FT isn't meta now and we seldom see it in matches now, doesn't mean it won't/can't be. Guns weren't a problem to warfare until they were, by example.@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068454#Comment_4068454
@cogsturning points out a few issues already, but I'm going to jump on some others.
On one hand, people are saying 'since it requires being hooked its not that strong', but then equally in turn are suggesting tunneling is bad. It's not that bad, it's just being hooked, right?Tunneling exists. There was an opportunity to reevaluate how much of a concept it should have in the game, but that's been nixed. Thus when discussing the strength of perks we need to talk about them under how the game can happen - which means if you take gen perks and get tunneled, you are in trouble.
End of the day this is mission objective versus mission objective, isn't it?No.
Very few things in an asym like DbD can be compared directly because the two sides are unique.
Survivors still have the exit gate and, as Cogs mentioned, progress into additional gens isn't relevant.
Also how the killer progresses their objective is very different. A hook is of much higher value if it creates an elimination.
Both sides have ways to regress the other sides objectives (heals, kicks, etc.), both have ways to counter the regression, both sides have risks to their options, and trying to go through all the possibilities would quickly get out of hand.
Trying to create a math argument isn't going to work.
It's why 'does this perk make a healthier game' a far a better discussion.
Inabsolutely no world of logicis getting 1/8th of your oppositions efforts as a benefit sensible, even with one instance of the perk in play. No one would approve a killer getting 1% permanent haste for each generator completed, by example.NOED gives the killer haste and instant downs when the survivors complete their objective.
Batteries included also does what you are discussing.
This would just lead to people 99'ing gens - just as fast track leads to tunneling.Let's say there was a killer perk that survivors had to 99 gens to play around.
The perk would still be getting a lot of value because 99ing gens creates more risk for the survivors that they can be regressed either by kicks or perks. Survivors have to change up their strategy in response to the perk.
The argument that killers need to 'engage' in tunneling because of fast track is saying killers have to do the thing that was already their best strategy.
That would equate into a perk that says something along the lines of 'When the fourth generator is completed, assign a hook state to a random survivor in the match.' Let's call this perk 'Rule of 8.'People are acting like fast track instantly finishes a gen. If that was what it did, sure. But killers have plenty of perks that speed up their objective, from faster movement speed to exposed effects.
Rule of 8 will never be instituted. Everyone present knows this perk will not be instituted. Survivors would loathe this perk, and killers who would want it don't deserve to have it. At face value it's awful, and most killers would downplay it the exact same way that survivors downplay Fast Track, but it amounts to same math. And that math is a free hook on 4th gen, in a gen rushing meta. This perk would see use, even if it cannot be stacked the way fast track can, meaning it is still categorically inferior to Fast Track.Rancor lets a killer bypass not just the injury states, but bypass the objective progress and go from no hooks to a death based on the survivors completing their objectives.
The types of perks people think would never make it in on the killer side already exist.
Forgive me if I become somewhat more erratic in discussion, as I wasn't prepared for the Eiffel tower. That being said:
"Tunneling exists. There was an opportunity to reevaluate how much of a concept it should have in the game, but that's been nixed. Thus when discussing the strength of perks we need to talk about them under how the game can happen - which means if you take gen perks and get tunneled, you are in trouble."
If you'd like to approach the discussion and math that way I don't mind at all. It is perhaps a bit more honest to simply discuss tunneling as a thing that is in the game rather than discuss it as if it's some fictional thing that could happen.
"Very few things in an asym like DbD can be compared directly because the two sides are unique.Survivors still have the exit gate and, as Cogs mentioned, progress into additional gens isn't relevant.
Also how the killer progresses their objective is very different. A hook is of much higher value if it creates an elimination.
Both sides have ways to regress the other sides objectives (heals, kicks, etc.), both have ways to counter the regression, both sides have risks to their options, and trying to go through all the possibilities would quickly get out of hand.
Trying to create a math argument isn't going to work.
It's why 'does this perk make a healthier game' a far a better discussion."
Saying 'a math argument isn't going to work' is tantamount to saying 'math cannot express this situation' which I find questionable. Yes, the game is asym and yes that does mean objectives are handled differently. The survivors have to open the gate, yes. The survivors have to unhook, heal, etc etc - this isn't to say the killer does not have their own litany of things to do in order to be successful. However the numbers can still inform an argument.
For instance, action economy favors the survivors and we see that in the highest end play - for every one killer the survivors get 4 actions. 4 distinct moving regions of objectives, pressure, and capability. Coupled with communication four will seldom fail to beat one. I do not have a problem with this, to be clear. The problem becomes how much value action economy should express. Do you balance for a 4:1? Absolutely not, that would create a tense, high-stakes situation where the killer always aims for 4k. 2:1 seems around where BHVR aims and that seems sensible. Numbers judge these goals. BHVR Has numbers they use and reflect upon, as you yourself point out.
To say math cannot be present for the conversation when math is present before it and math is present after it is dismissive and frankly dishonest, don't you think? I don't think you're trying to be dishonest in earnest, but when the balancing starts with math, and ends with a math outcome, why are we pretending the middle is a black box? I don't think anyone here is under the impression BHVR doesn't use math in perk creation or kit balancing. At least, I hope no one thinks that.
'Why does this perk make a healthier game' is a fine discussion, but it will be a muddy and blurry one without comparisons and math. I don't find arguing back and forth in emotional bids, flurries up downvotes and us vs them positioning useful. Though, admittedly, that's more most discussions on this topic than your or cogs.
"NOED gives the killer haste and instant downs when the survivors complete their objective.Batteries included also does what you are discussing."
NOED conditionally triggers and has counter play, it's not what I'm talking about. Batteries has conditional triggering as well. What I said was a permanent 1% haste with the insinuation of it stacking. Neither batteries nor NOED do that. For good reason.
"Let's say there was a killer perk that survivors had to 99 gens to play around.The perk would still be getting a lot of value because 99ing gens creates more risk for the survivors that they can be regressed either by kicks or perks. Survivors have to change up their strategy in response to the perk.
The argument that killers need to 'engage' in tunneling because of fast track is saying killers have to do the thing that was already their best strategy."
There already is a killer perk that does that, and you cited it. Batteries. And players can and do 99 gens and take that risk to avoid creating haste zones with it - though granted I only tend to see this from SWF's which makes it a rough example. And I agree it creates value in the 99'ing.
And yes, the best strategy for killers in situations like those presented, mathematically, is to tunnel. It's not against the rules, but is crude and unkind to do. That is rather the point. I'm not saying FT creates tunneling, I'm saying it further encourages it in a clime where we are trying to discourage it. If we're fine with encouraging it, then my position falls apart. If people are just accepting and encouraging tunneling then I can't do anything but throw my hands up.
"People are acting like fast track instantly finishes a gen. If that was what it did, sure. But killers have plenty of perks that speed up their objective, from faster movement speed to exposed effects."
This is the only thing you said that I actually find rude. It has nothing to do with the quoted portion of my statement, and immediately bandies off talking about how people act as if I am not the direct inference. You can just say you think it's how I'm acting - it would be more productive. We're both adults.
But if you feel so inclined - give me the killer perks. Tell me which killer perks create permanent, uncounterable objective progression. Which killer uncounterable perk creates permanent hook states. If your argument is that the math isn't that clear because asym, that's fine, but then you don't have an example that isn't apples to oranges. Exposed is a status that has multiple counter plays and is limited in duration. Speed ups are duration based and adjusted by percentage.
Which killer perks gives permanent, uncounterable objective progression in the same way FT does?
"Rancor lets a killer bypass not just the injury states, but bypass the objective progress and go from no hooks to a death based on the survivors completing their objectives."
Rancor is an excellent example! But it is not the Rule of 8.
Rancor gives the survivor benefits as well, repeatedly, and hallmarks its presence as many killer actions do, giving survivors heads up to counterplay. Additionally it doesn't have objective altering power until the EGC, like NOED. I will say it does inflict permanent exposed, but that's after the survivors have completed their objectives.
This is not uncounterable, and this is permanent from a much later stage in the game than FT. If Rancor triggered earlier, say at gen 3 or 4, it would be comparable. My point isn't that it would be balanced - my point is precisely that it would not be balanced. -
To me the largest unhealthy thing in the game is BHVR not committing to either being a competitive game or a party game and balancing accordingly. I don't blame them mind you, seems like more money gained as a company if you can appeal to both - but it's going to destroy this game.
Beyond that my list would be :
- Body blocking
- Endurance Abuse
- BM'ing
- Slugging behavior
- Lack of end-game interaction (you die, you out) -
No.
I rarely agree with Aven_Fallen, but I agree with him here. Luck offerings only serve to next-game, and clutter the web just like many of the map offerings. We'd be better off in total absence of them, or the ability to sell things off for BP. Further buffing luck would just encourage disguised go-next behavior, I'm afraid. -
Huntress for me, as a Huntress main.
Honestly I just like that she's simpler and direct, no bells, no whistles. No 'where's the chain', no 'slow down as dagger throw and possible gamble speed up'. Just aim, arc, calculate in head, fire. Easy as, every time. It's simple, clean, it's dependable.
My only real issue is that the map geometry and navmeshing of the maps is nauseatingly bad. When I'm getting tilted as Huntress it's 99% the idea of a tiny leaf stem dead-stopping my hatchet, or the maps just being built to be ranged unfriendly. -
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068454#Comment_4068454
This isn't quite right though. You're using best case scenario numbers and FT depends on a few things. First, you have to use the tokens before they max out. That can happen fast in a bad match. Second, you need a skill check to generate, and you need to land the great. When I've had tokens with this perk, I often either don't get a skill check, or I miss the great. Sometimes trying to get the great makes me miss entirely and now I've just damaged my gen and had a loud noise event. And third, there are seven gens, not five. If you put the tokens into the wrong gen that never gets finished, they're wasted.
Certainly, and these are all valid concerns but don't change the shape of the problem we're looking at. A skill check requiring a great is solid, but veteran players regularly nail great checks enough that I don't think it's a meaningful hinderance. This just means high-end players will be more likely to get the benefit from this perk than casual players, which is also questionable in design.
As for their being seven gens, you are absolutely right I am only counting the five. But I'm also not counting for sabo hooks, flashlight saves, etc in the killers 'Effort output.' There are too many variables to account for on both sides and come to an objective reality. You are absolutely correct there. All we can do is model a scenario and go from there.
To dismiss data out of hand because it is not perfect is not sensible either. Perfect is the enemy of good.
If I adjusted accordingly with some rough out of head math to factor 7 gens instead of 5, that would put us somewhere around a 1/10 ratio or so instead of 1/8, with Fast Track rewarding the survivor for 10% of the killers total efforts. That doesn't seem like it steps out of the realm of being problematic at all, to me. 10% return for your oppositions efforts is still a great deal.
I do however agree the example is not perfect: I am not aiming for perfect. I'm just trying to reduce the problem to a mathematical one, as there's enough emotional bickering already. 'I feel like X' doesn't seem particularly productive argument wise, so I want to lean on numbers conversationally and find what number would people be happy with.
If Fast Track was nerfed to 1/32, for instance, would players be happy with a killer getting 1/32 the survivor effort on a similar perk, etc etc. Or even a perk that returns a benefit for each instance of the perk on the survivors given the asymetrical nature of it all. It's difficult to quantify but not so far out of reality that it's a lost cause. -
@TicTac said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068438#Comment_4068438
Difficult. The wiki has some listed, but its maybe outdated. Blood gen kicks for sure, kicking a blood can, hitting a survivor wirh a blood can. Then blood gen repair (all steps). But maybe there are more.
Thank you as well, for trying to answer the question TicTac. 😁
-
@Wezqu said:
Blood Moon Score Events
Survivor
- Bloody Repairs = Awarded when a blood gen is finished and you did not burn an event offering
- Blood-Red Repairs = Awarded when a blood gen is finished and you did burn an event offering
- Blood-Fuelled = Awarded when adding blood to a blood gen (you gain more points if you burnt an event offering)
- Gathering Blood = Awarded when adding charges to a blood can (you gain more points if you burnt an event offering)Killer
- Blood on Your Hands = Awarded hitting survivor carrying a blood can (you gain more points if you burnt an event offering)
- Caught Ya! = Awarded if you grab a survivor from blood generator or blood pump (you gain more points if you burnt an event offering)
- Damage Blood Generator = Awarded of damaging a blood generator (you gain more points if you burnt an event offering)
- Spill It! = Awarded of kicking a blood can that is on the ground (you gain more points if you burnt an event offering)Thank you Wezqu.
-
I'm not sure I understand a prevailing sentiment I'm seeing displayed here. On one hand, people are saying 'since it requires being hooked its not that strong', but then equally in turn are suggesting tunneling is bad. It's not that bad, it's just being hooked, right?
End of the day this is mission objective versus mission objective, isn't it?
Killer needs to complete 12 mission objectives (hook states) to 4K.
Survivor needs to complete 5 gens to 4E.
Fast track is 6% perm progress per hook. That's 1.2% of total gen time, per hook completed with no counter-play if a single person runs it. This means that each time the killer attains 1 hook (8.3% of their objective), the survivors are rewarded with 1.2% of an objective with zero possible counter-play, per instance of perk in play. This means that if four individuals run fast track, they gain (1.2*3) 3.6% total objective per hook. Outlandish or not, this is possible but not likely.
This means if a full hook spread (the desirable killer behavior) is performed, the killer will have completed 33.2% of their total objective. The survivors will get a 'free' 14.4% completion. They are getting 43% of the end output of the killers effort. If the killer plays the way you want them to play, the survivors in this scenario get nearly half the benefit the killer does for the killer playing as you'd like. This could be fixed largely by making fast-track a one-per-match kind of perk, or have a match wide limit on 'permanent progress' on a generator.
The problem remains however that even with one perk in play, a survivor is gaining 1.2% of an objective for free, for every 8.3% the killer completes. In absolutely no world of logic is getting 1/8th of your oppositions efforts as a benefit sensible, even with one instance of the perk in play. No one would approve a killer getting 1% permanent haste for each generator completed, by example. This would just lead to people 99'ing gens - just as fast track leads to tunneling.
The only counter-play of Fast Track is undesirable behavior. Whether it's a problem now or not is not relevant in the discussion, as we are putting yet another piece on the table to contribute to the potential of a future snowball. We know a boon that offers permanent completion is on the horizon, and BNP already exists. Whether these tools are being used at large or not is not relevant to whether or not the current state of the perk is healthy. Unhealthy is unhealthy.
To the counter point, if we are expected to see this kind of balance philosophy applied in the future, I'd expect to start seeing similar ratios on the killer. That is to say, killers getting perks that allow killers to gain 1/8th the 'total output' of survivors as a benefit towards their total objective. That would equate into a perk that says something along the lines of 'When the fourth generator is completed, assign a hook state to a random survivor in the match.' Let's call this perk 'Rule of 8.'
This would be the equivalent of the killer gaining 8.3% of their objectives, in exchange of the survivors completing 80% of theirs, roughly equal to the 1/8 ratio from fast track.
Rule of 8 will never be instituted. Everyone present knows this perk will not be instituted. Survivors would loathe this perk, and killers who would want it don't deserve to have it. At face value it's awful, and most killers would downplay it the exact same way that survivors downplay Fast Track, but it amounts to same math. And that math is a free hook on 4th gen, in a gen rushing meta. This perk would see use, even if it cannot be stacked the way fast track can, meaning it is still categorically inferior to Fast Track.
So if we see this design philosophy continuing, I'd imagine we're going to see something like the Rule of 8 instituted. It would be balanced, mathematically, fair, and even weaker than Fast Track is. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?
TL-DR; No. No it does not. It's not reasonable and neither is Fast-Track. It sets a very unhealthy precedence for future perks, add-ons, tools, and kits. No one should gain 1/8th of their oppositions efforts just from a single perk selection. It's madness. -
There is an option. As a survivor, you just leave in the Mori - Most Survivors do. As a killer, you can just not Mori.
Sorry OP, I can't back this one. There are already options present and putting a Mori option off switch in the game would be intensive given you can mori mid match, and no one wants to give the killer a speed up as that animation lock can be useful time to burn a gen down or escape. You have tools available to you if you dislike it. Asking for additional tools for hemophilia, children, or distaste isn't particularly valid. Children shouldn't be playing, hemophiliacs should know not to, and distaste would be the same.
Changing the game for people who would ritualistically avoid games like this is added work for precious little benefit. Just skip the Mori's or don't do them. -
@TicTac said:
There are the four categories (Brutality, etc.) and a separate event category (max. 20k points). The offering doubles the bp gains for this category (blood gen kick: 500 = 1000), but i doesnt exceed the cap.
Thank you! That much I understand, however, what all constitute 'blood moon events' in that category? I can't seem to isolate a list.
-
Momo handled it poorly. That being said, I don't think nerfing blight is the solution as then we'd just see people do it on nurse, kaneki, etc. As others pointed out winstreak runs on lower tier killers are quite common as well. Mind you I do think Blight is due some minor nerfs, but I don't think it would fix this particular issue.
This really is an MMR issue. But as long as people are able to make money/subs doing this, it will continue I'm sure. The new MMR system may fix it, we'll see. -
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4067338#Comment_4067338
Let's clear the thought process then.
The bat in question is a tool, usually used to play baseball. You can however usually use a bat to play other games, sweep under couches to get something, get a impromptu drum beat going, and of course smack a fool across the face along with whatever other imaginative things you can think of.
The company in question is basically making things that can be used to play baseball. They're not telling people what to do with the bat, they just make tools for the game.
Obviously the guy who smacked you wanted to smack you for whatever reason. Could be a valid reason, could be a crazy reason, but for whatever reason they did the deed. They used the tool made by the company to deal direct damage to the face, arm, or [insert part here].
So, in light of this, what would you pick?
I love your energy, but not your conclusion: Puts me in quite a position!
This is somewhat disingenuous. 'The Company in question is basically making things that can be used to play baseball' is a narrow focus. The Company isn't just making the bat, they are making the bat, the bases, the protective gear, the balls, the mitts, all of it. To suggest that they just make the bat removes the onus of their responsibility by suggesting they are just giving us things and we do what we want with them in a game someone else designed.
This isn't the case. They make it all, including the rules to the game.
If the lead Yankee's batter (I don't know I'm not a sports person) swung, hit the ball, then carried the bat with him to first base and cold-clocked the person there to avoid them tagging him out we would not be saying 'Wow, he's an arse, but there's no rules against it. It's a thing only arses do.' No, he'd be delisted, benched, and quite possibly banned outright because the rules do not allow for this behavior.
BHVR doesn't just make the bat, they make the rules, the perks, the build limits, consumables, tools, add-ons, killer kits, all of it. What is allowed in the game is everything they do not explicitly and directly rule out. They can rule it out by nerfing it, coding it out, removing the possibility entirely, etc.
Thus the onus lay with BHVR. If they want tunneling to not exist, they will make it not exist. If they want a perk to not do X, they will make that perk not do X. Yes they have pressure from their players, as well as devs, coders and the industry at large but the onus is theirs. Dismissing the application of rules and changes in favor of 'just be a nice fella' in a PVP Game is… I like the spirit, I do, but that's the kind of optimism I cannot fathom. I don't trust people to use blinkers, let alone to be sensible and balanced in a PVP game.
TL-DR; Kinda, but if it was possible, legal, and not punished by the leagues I'm pretty sure we would see people getting silly with those bats in baseball. -
Tunneling exists because BHVR lets it exist. Yeah, some bad players go too far with it I'll say it outright, but blaming them is senseless because blaming them won't fix anything. No amount of blame will make tunneling stop, and no amount of shaming will correct the behavior. If you just want to vent that's valid, but let's not pretend its constructive.
Killers will tunnel as long as tunneling is an option. It's a staple that has evolved into the pool and the djinni cannot be put back into the lamp. Optimized play is a phenomenon that occurs in all games. Optimized for survivors is gen rushing while a dedicated looper distracted. Optimized for Killers is tunneling to reduce the workforce on the generators from 100% to 75% or lesser.
To be clear I don't much care for this - it's boring. But to be equally clear, no amount of moral grand-standing or brow beating will ever change either behavior. It doesn't matter if 1 in 5 surv groups is a tryhard SWF, or if 1 in 100 is a tryhard SWF, the optimized play style from a killer is going to be to tunnel, proxy, and slug in case they lose that gamble. Equally it doesn't matter if 1 in 5 killers tunnel, or 1 in 100, the negative confirmation bias will drive them to play in sweatier fashion just in case.
Both sides are playing to win. It's not an 'exploit' to tunnel, if it was it would have been coded out. 'They tried but didn't' is not valid, as the operative term there is 'didn't.' It's not an exploit anymore than endurance body blocking is an exploit.
This is just the game as it is, and it's okay to not like the game as it is. The current meta and optimization playstyle is exhausting and often disappointing for both sides. As a Killer I find tunneling boring and frankly mind-numbing when I feel I have to do it. As a survivor playing the generator minigame and pre-running on TR is equally mind-numbing and boring.
We just need the meta to get mixed up, and things to be balanced out in such a fashion that neither of the current optimizations are viable anymore. -
I can give lists on this, but I'll just give a handful in the Killer:Survivor format. Most of which I consider, personally, outlandish for different reasons.
- Amazing Digital Circus [Caine:Pomni]
- Hazbin Hotel [Nifty/Cherry:Charlie]
- Magnus Archives [Any:Any]
- Who Framed Roger Rabbit [Judge Doom:Roger Rabbit]
- Cool World [Holli Would:Jack Deebs]
- Predator [Predator:Any]
- Judge Dredd [Judge Dredd:Any]
- M3GAN [M3gan:Any]
- The Blob [The Blob:Any]
- Splinter [Splinter:Any]
- The Ritual [Loki:Any]
- Puppetmaster [Any:Any]
- Sleepy Hollow [Headless Horseman:Ichabod Crane]
- The Craft [Nancy Downs:Sarah Baily]
- Perfect Blue [Mamoru Uchida:Mima Kirigoe]
- Gremlins [Any:Mogwai] (Please god if killers can chucky height lemme be mogwai)
- Critters [Critter:Any]
- The Prophecy [Gabriel:Any]
- John Wick [John Wick:Whichever-survivor-failed-the-dog-event]
- Final Fantasy 6 [Kefka:Terra]
- Letterkenny [Wayne:Skid]
- Rick And Morty [Rick:Morty]
- Jurassic Park [Raptor:Any]
- Nightvale [Kevin:Cecil]
Edit: Forgot Nightvale. -
I have no hard evidence and I try to assume it's just my memory being bad. It's hard to say though, as compensations, rewards, and even event structures seem to offer less BP now. Even down to the christmas event's mistletoe only giving bonus blood points for event related stuff and only during the event. 2v8 offered no BP incentive to killers, or event incentive at all save for the higher multiplier for survivors which was fair to get survivors flush in the event, but the event itself gave nothing. I made around 25% as much bloodpoints as normal as killer if I did 2v8, as opposed to just doing normal matches before the event.
It even seems like survivor pudding and bloody streamers are rarer and rarer in the bloodweb. But the primary word is seems. It feels that way, but frankly speaking I just don't trust our memories collectively. I'd want to see hard numbers to back the idea, just as you would. Maybe someone will hop in and give us some definitive historical patterns and comparisons. -
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4065265#Comment_4065265
He didn't get his speed nerfed in a vacuum. The total knives needed to hit was decreased by 25%. Hence the comparison. Also never said new trickster isn't viable without haste perks. Just that they are readily available for the complainers to use.
Touche. Point taken.
-
I'd like to see survivor and killer mains get more new stuff, but I think elusive is a miss outside of the unhook elusives. If a party wanted to run full stealth with elusive all that does is encourage the killer to target and kill whoever they find relentlessly, regardless of previous hooks. All this would lead to is a meta in where the weakest person on your team gets tunneled not because the killer chose to, but because that's the only person the killer could find.
It would also, yes, enforce the slowdown meta. -
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4065261#Comment_4065261
Sure if the total number of gens needed to be completed was also decreased by 25%
My point was that justifying or dismissing a complaint because a perk can do X goes both ways. In the example to date it went something like:
>'He's slow.'
>'Dismissed, he can run haste perks.'
Vs.
>'Slow the gens down.'
>'Dismissed, they can run gen speed perks.'
But you immediately went from the 1:1 to a
>'Slow the gens down.'
>'Dismissed, they can run gen speed perks.'
>'Only if we have to do 25% less.'Which would conversely mean someone could argue
>'He's slow.'
>'Dismissed, he can run haste perks.'
>'Okay but make them 25% better.'
I'm just trying to point out that the argumentation there is flawed. Dismissal isn't overly useful versus discourse. If a killer is only tenable with specific perks then the argument to return would be that survivors should only be tennable with specific perks, which is a downward spiral into a nothing-burger. -
I agree with Rogue on this one more or less. Though I don't think proxy camping is much of an issue - he's a ranged killer. You'll never stop him from proxy camping, so wasting effort there is a moot point sadly. He's not doing anything at 20 meters that huntress can't do three times as fast, and he's burning an add on on less dependable projectiles to do so.
-
@Rogue11 said:
If only there were a plethora of killer perks available that give frequent haste bonuses of 5-10%...
Would you be fine seeing gen time to completion increased, given there's a plethora of gen speed perks for survivors?
Edit: Typo fix. -
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4065219#Comment_4065219
No, show me YOUR footage of you dominating killers.
Please, show me your footage or are you a one-trick pony advocating for your side? Hm.
Your points aren't invalid at all, in high MMR this would rattle and break things. However… why are we advocating for balancing off of high MMR? That's a niche portion of the game, and MMR is broken anyway. Hasn't the model BHVR has been using been focal on balancing according to the lowest performers and their struggles?
Bringing the bulk of the game more in line with being welcome to newcomers is important, we need that fresh blood. If a change is made that rattles high MMR I'm just not certain that concern is as egregiously weighty as you present it to be. Certainly there would need to be minor adjustments to adjust for the higher MMR, but OP's idea here is (while rough) trying to adjust for a very real problem. BHVR is releasing larger and larger maps, and many of which are indoor. Why would they not then pivot balancing to accomodate for those things? If the environment changes, so too must the balance. Evolution is determined by environment afterall.
And before someone says something along the lines of 'High tier would benefit too much on killer side' again, need I remind you that the high tier killers (as the OP pointed out) are largely mobility killers. They don't need this buff that's correct, but it also would not particularly help them. Blight is going to pinball around either way and I would presume this speed boost would preclude movement abilities speeds. Nurse is going to blink around anyway, and Kaneki is gonna do his Alex Mercer zoomies either way. Billy is going to fly around with his saw, either way.
The problem really is that mobility is proving to be meta for killer Tiers, and unless that can be addressed we are just going to see new killers being mobility to compete (as if they don't compete they won't sell and if they don't sell what's the point for BHVR?) while lower tiers become more and more obsolete.
Is the idea rough? Sure, but it's a helluva lot better than just griping until nothing new shakes things up and BHVR is forced to release increasingly large numbers of mobility killers just to make something people are willing to buy. No one wants to see the next three killers be S-tier due to mobility - it's sad to see as a Killer and depressingly annoying as survivor.
TL-DR;
I'm not worried about how killers would 'break' this at all, partially because survivors will also meta around 'breaking' it by forcing loops. It's already common practice to have a survivor on loop duty trying to get and keep the killers attention - that would immediately break patrol mode as killers have no control over when they enter chase, it's determined by a survivor in line of sight running.So long as the killer abilities do not gain this movespeed bonus in patrol mode, or patrol mode is made to interrupt the patrol mode, I think it's a fine idea.
I.E. - Huntress hatchet throw state shouldn't speed up, billy chainsaw dash shouldn't speed up, etc etc etc.
-
@OrangeBear said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/N9XBAG4YZ8W0/image.png
Trickster buffs 😄
His add-ons got major glow up tooAll due respect intended, but these aren't buffs. If I take your pie from you and hand you back 75% of a pie, you argue, and I then hand to 80% of a pie, it's not a 'pie buff.' I still took 20% of your pie. Not that BHVR took the pie in this case, but for some examples of what you're calling buffs it does feel applicable.
Core
Increased base throw state movement - You run at 4.4, start throwing at 3.86, instead of 3.68. Either way you are categorically slower than survivors at 4.0, who typically run a speed augmentation as well. This means that once you enter throw state your option is to down them, or lose chase closure to an extended chase.
If you land an injury, by the time you do so it's increasingly likely the survivor is gone. If the math is I remember it, a survivor goes to 6.0 m/s for a short period of time (3~s). That means for a brief time the survivor is moving at nearly double your throwing speed if you land injury, and all they need to do is put a solid object in a landscape of solid objects between them and you. After throwing 10 knives you move at 3.16 m/s, while an survivor on the trigger of a successful throw (injury) hits 6.0. Assuming this took 6~ Seconds or so and you injured 3 seconds into this, that would give the survivor (.14) meters on you per second in chase while throwing. If you succeed the event and injure they gain (2.84) meters per second on you for three seconds as you descend into 3.16.
[(.14*3)+(2.84*3)] is on average around 9 meters, assuming optimal patterns. Gaining at 110% means it will take you [.4/9] to catch up, around 22.5 seconds, 21 if you go for lunge. Alternatively you can keep gambling by slowing yourself down and throwing more, but you are going to continue to lag back. This introduces windows for survivors to body block and run intervention, while cutting off line of sight becomes more than counter-play, but instead becomes punishing.
So every second in throw state you are moving slower than the thing you are chasing (.14 starting,) and increasingly move slower than them the longer it takes you to land shots. Thus it encourages you to M1 wherever possible rather than engage with the killers mechanic, but 4.4 M1 is rough.
Admittedly as a huntress main I envy the 3.86m/s, but my hatchets insta injure at 3.08 m/s and I wouldn't trade that for the world as I just fire and forget, no extended windows of slow down in most cases, and much higher accuracy at range with stronger lob potential. Less gambling involved.
Laceration Decay - 4.4 seconds to decay from 3 is a buff, but one that balances the sluggish tempo of the killer. 4.4 seconds with a killer at average speed of [3.86+3.53+3.16/3 (simplified)] 3.51 m/s while throwing, means the survivor in question has gained 2.15 meters on the killer in that 4.4 seconds. If a survivor cannot block line of sight or space the killer in that time, then they are rewarded for their failure to do so by facing a killer a 3.16 m/s. This is a gamble trade-off, which isn't uncommon but it's particularly punishing when each gamble Trickster makes slows him down up to 3.16.
Say you engage with Trickster and eat 4 stacks of laceration across a 10 second throwing spree. Slop math (4.4+3.86[11.58]*+3.53*3[10.59]+3.16*3[9.48]) says Trickster moves 31.65 meters in this chase. The survivor assuming no speed bonuses is moving 40. You now have 8.35 meters lead, which will take Trickster 20 seconds to close. Your stacks are gone. If you get a decent Trickster who lands an injury in this time at say, second 7 in the chase, you gain (4.0*7[28]+6.0*3[18]) [46] 14.35 meters on him. This will take him 35.87 seconds to catch up to you. Your stacks are gone and you, assuming you do not wish to demonstrate darwinism, are well hidden behind solid objects or moving to your team for assistance. If you play sweat you push him through loops, delay the catch-up, and continue this cycle all the better. Your lacerations again are gone by the time he catches up short of him being on the high end of thrown accuracy and you are not dodging or blocking.
48 seconds, plus let's say kindly the Trickster is on the better side of decent and you fail to loop or block, and he downs you promptly on catching up.
The problem with the above math is that this encompasses 48 seconds. That is ~50% of a generator per survivor not in chase, or not assisting. Assuming a survivor is assisting you or moving to assist, that's a generator completed per chase cycle assuming a perkless comp on both sides.
Yes, Main event is a thing, but you're going to be headed for solid objects between the two of you the moment you engage as that's the counter-play, so Main Event locking Trickster into [3.92*10] may seem favorable, but it's not once you start looping any one of the boundless geometical collision objects in any given tile and hugging it like a hang-over hugs a toilet. Trickster could delay out into M1, but at 4.4 he's going to struggle to pull that off and it only punishes him for using his power.
Add-Ons
Caged Heart Shoes - 5% throw state speed is not worth an add-on slot, particularly when throw state speed fluctuates.
Lucky Blade - Would you take a survivor add-on that made your toolkit faster 1/8th of the time? 3% Haste on a 110 is not helpful, let alone for 3 seconds. Style point is nice, I suppose? This feels like there was no solid idea for what it would do so it got shotgunned with effects. Arguably, the more effects there are on this add-on the worse it is, as it becomes less and less dependable.
Trick Blades - Bounce is back and nice, but the eight blade per trigger invites the same comment as before: would a survivor use an add-on slot on something that does something 1/8th the time? Some would I'm sure, but it's a gamble at best for a mediocre pay-out. You gamble an add-on slot and pray to RNG.
Iridescent Photo - 'All auras revealed' is the 'buff' here, but the time you least want the survivors to see your aura (Main Event) is not worth seeing their aura. This statistically provides the survivors more benefit than it provides you, as running blind you are four times as likely to find a person than the survivors are to find a killer. This is, if anything, a further nerf. Revealing the aura of a ranged killer to the survivors just tells them to keep solid objects between X and Y until decay.
Mind you I've full faith BHVR will change Trickster further and adjust, this isn't me being doomer. Just wanted to point out that the math alone here tells me that if left in current state Trickster will indeed be doomed to C-tier at best. Trickster is, in this iteration, a killer that seems to appeal to style, fluidity and speed but plays clunkily and sluggishly. Stylish, for certain, but it's jarring. I look forward to seeing him improved. -
These are interesting ideas, and while I share the frustration with high-end SWF and the lack of MMR limiting encounters of them, I'm not sure all of these are equally valid, no disrespect intended. I won't get into the comments on the argument back and forth, and will try to address OP's point directly.
1.) There should be a tag for pre-made groups, yes. Regardless of claims 'it will kill the game', 'Killers will dodge', etc etc, there should be one. If the game cannot be healthy without presenting even playing field and options, then it does not deserve to be healthy. It is not only rough on killers but also on SoloQ'ers who match into 3-mans and get treated like a resource for not being in the group.
2.) Information compensation is a very interesting idea, but ultimately I don't think it would help. The problem with a full try-hard SWF is the same the problem with a full try-hard Killer slugging and tunnelling, that is to say the game's balance does not permit equitable ground to counteract them even if you do know. Knowing may help, but in most cases this would end up being alot of coding effort for very little pay-out I'm afraid.
It wouldn't be fair or reasonable to put that kind of thing on BHVR, not least of all because killers benefit differently from different things. Aura reveals on Legion are less useful than aura reveals on Huntress, etc. This would simply lead to a different tier system so to speak when provided SWF information incentives.
3.) I advocated once for separate queues, but only with the understanding that if this solution is implemented other solutions should not be. It's kind of a red pill or blue pill approach for me. I don't care if queue times skyrocket - I'd rather wait 30 minutes for a pleasant match-up experience, than spend half my night getting bully squaded into the dirt. I lose that 30 minutes either way. To be clear before anyone comments, I'm not being hyperbolic. I have indeed had nights in which half my matches were full-on bullysquads with sabo, head-on, flashbang, four flashlights, etc etc.
4.) In game voice would be useless, to be direct. It would be a burden on BHVR to code, and any 'balanced' integration of it would be promptly destroyed by Discord existing. Proximity chat would make the game more fun, but the same SWF's that are a problem now would just bypass prox by using discord. In-game VOIP would just open the game up to more toxicity and little else, sadly. I wish otherwise, frankly I'd love for their to be full on prox chat, as I'd love to use a voice modulator and just generally be spooky on comms as killer and chase people who are prox communicating using their voices as locational data. Alas.
I will comment to the effect of the quotation on the SWF stats however:I don't know how BHVR applies analytics but I don't believe the 'SWF's are as successful as soloQ' data. Not because I think their data is wrong, but because if you don't show us the full data we can't do a comparative analysis with the data. I.E., what is the common success rate of a SWF that includes known bully perks? What is the common success rate of a SWF in which all players have a total prestige level of 50+? Lumping the data of random folk who just play with friends against people who try-hard is not going to give you anything useful. This is particularly true when we know people are also more likely to troll and goof off when playing in a SWF with friends.
Not having all the data means I can't accept the results of some of the data. -
I think this is a Dunner-Kruger type situation.
If you judge all Bubba play off of Epidemys, then Bubba is S-tier and needs to be nerfed. But if you judge all Bubba play off of Player_01 who clocks in for two matches a week on Fridays after work, Bubba needs some massive buffs.
Skill levels dictate opinions in nefarious ways. I tend to get 4K's on Huntress, or 0K, and seldom in between, when I tunnel/camp/slug. But when I don't do those things I get… 4K's, or 0K, seldom in between. The reasoning is that I personally only slug/tunnel if I sniff a SWF on the air, or I see some disrespectful or unpleasant behavior. This, unfortunately, does mean I end up tunneling and slugging more often than not. People love to teabag and taunt to try to pull attention and I have no real way to know if it's them trying to make a play, or be a @)*#$, so I sit up.
This means as a result my read on tunneling is skewed because, effectively, I only end up using the tactic when I feel I need to.
Kind of re-creates that old joke. "60% of the time, works every time."
TL-DR; Survivor bias, and not the 'survivor' of DbD. People who have the skill to 4K without it don't need it enough to bother remembering or caring about it, people who need it a little don't realize how much, and people who need it alot won't typically be open about the use of it as a crutch. -
@ImWinston said:
- Yes guys, what OP says is true, but seriously, how many times can this happen in the life of a killer player? It requires an organized SWF, with communication, and EVERYONE on the team must have a gen-rush build. (There are some speed record attempts on YouTube.) But in comparison, how much more effective and frequent (and easier because it doesn't require any organization) is tunneling on 4-5 gen? We can safely say that the ratio is easily 100 to 1.🤣
Edit: It's like when you stack We'll make it + boon "circle of healing" + Orela perk with 2 stacks + 4 stacks of Desperate Measures... a full heal takes about 4 seconds.... but objectively, apart from funny videos on Youtube, how many times can this happen in the "real life" of a DBD player?🤣
It's really not as uncommon as you make it out to be. I encounter one to two hyper coordinated SWF's a night, and I only play around ten matches a night. That would put it at 10% or so in whatever MMR I live in. Whether it be healing efficiency teams, boon stacking teams, gen rush teams, or full-on bullysquads. The most common by far is gen rushers however.
That being said - does it matter?
Thought experiment. There's a restauraunt in town trying a new process. A red card is placed on your table during dinner with a friend. Now if at any time one of you picks up that red card the other party is forced to pay for the entire meal.
Is your first thought 'I just won't go without people I trust'? That's pre-made matches.
Is your first thought 'I want some regulation enforced on this to make it more fair'? That's the competive scene.
Is your first thought 'I'll just pull the card everytime because he will if I won't'? That's killers tunnelling to avoid being pinned by hyper build SWF's, or alternatively, that's people running hyper SWF's to avoid being tunneled.
Is your first thought 'I'll just suffer through it and miss out sometimes'? That's the soloQ'ers being told to just cope.
Is your first thought 'I'll eat elsewhere'? That's a different game.
Is your first thought 'Why can't we get rid of this red card'? That's the point I would express.
The problem isn't how people behave under these circumstances and how you can carve out a niche in which to enjoy the restauraunt. The problem is itself the circumstances. Granted it's not as easy for the dev's to simply stop the red card, it's much more complex an issue, but that doesn't change the end-goal here. The end goal should be removing the red card, not finding a philosophy that makes stomaching the gamble more tolerable.
The red card existing at all is the focal issue, unless the restauraunt is married to keeping the red card intentionally, which I do not believe is in the spirit of BHVR's leanings and I offer them somewhat more credit than that. It's just a difficult task to take on, particularly when each niche change or adjustment is answered with all the fury and bluster of a fire god by one side or the other.
Can we just agree that The Red Card Existing is in itself, not a desirable outcome? One that we can work our way away from? -
I dunno about the buff presented honestly, it seems fine. As is, it already hard counters and circumvents Deer Stalker, which is a lower tier perk admittedly. I'm astonished it adds elusive at all if I'm honest, I don't understand why it would. If it's keeping elusive, it most certainly doesn't need further buffs to incentivize it. It's strong as is for communicating, locking down totems and hexes, locating generators, as well as seeing the killer.
For all that it does, I think the initiation cost and the cooldown are rather appropriate.
Admittedly yes it does lose alot of value in soloQ (despite still being very good for soloQ), as it seems the primary point of the perk would be to run ISR over comms to your team. Buffing it further for soloQ may end up inadvertantly making it too strong for SWF play. But then again, that just seems to be the running problem these days. -
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4061406#Comment_4061406
I appreciate that extra context to your initial comment.
Data only tells part of the picture that's true! But it's also an important factor when developing a game and particularly in balancing - but we don't only work on data, we look at the other aspects…but if the data is telling one story, and the sentiment is saying something else, that's where things get more difficult and then it needs deeper look at what can be adjusted to address the sentiment of one side, whilst not impacting the data.
Believe me, I wish things were easy, but when we're dealing with an asymetrical game, plus two sides of a PvP game - its not as easy as people initially think
I'll take advantage of your vantage if you'll forgive it. I'm sure we're all curious what sort of data you operate off of versus which datasets you treats as unreliable or throw-away data. This isn't asked in accusation, as you said balancing an asymm is a misery, but that being said there's alot of bickering over tiny pedantries on the forums. This could help us have a point of solidification on at least one point.
What data are you employing use of? Just win statistics, or is the data subcategorized and pivoted to reflect MMR, application of perks and mods, etc? In example, would you look at the win-rate of say, Trapper, and call it done or do you look at the win-rate when using double iri and categorize that data as it's own set? You mentioned other aspects you balance off of, could you provide a little clarity into what other aspects you consider?
I recognize this feels a bit rude and I apologize for that, but I genuinely do feel that some more transparency could potentially go a long way. Or, rather, it could for a while before we all find something else to get up in arms about. -
@Wiccamanplays said:
To set aside the obvious anger/emotional over-investment OP has in their recent posts (happens to all of us), it is evident that the 2v1 is the worst potential part of any trial. There're a couple of different scenarios that can currently happen, and they're all annoying as hell for all concerned. Assuming that nobody gives up or DCs and there's noting like Devour Hope in play, this is how it goes down.
Stage 1. Killer sacrifices 2 Survivors. If Endgame Collapse is not active, one of the following occurs:
Survivors 3 and 4 can either
a) try to finish remaining gens/open exit gates. Difficult, doesn't always work depending on gen progress/map layout but the most likely option to actually acheive something and is in the true spirit of the game.
or
b) hide and hope that Killer finds the other first. Bad scenario, wastes everyone's time, frustrates Killer and other Survivor. Survivors who do this often (or even go into the trial with the intention of doing this) exhibit a selfish playstyle that values their own survival over their team's.
2. Killer, assuming they find a Survivor and can catch them in a timely manner, can
a) leave Survivor 3 slugged to find Survivor 4 and get them too. Bad scenario, wastes time while Survivor 4 either runs, hides or goes on the merry-go-round of picking up Survivor 4 and being downed and healed on loop, negative feelings all around. Killers who do this often either believe that a 4k is the only acceptable win condition or have an animus against the Survivors, possibly for actions during the rest of the trial.
or
b) Killer hooks Survivor 3. This leads to another fork in the road.
3. If Survivor 3 is on death hook (or is on Struggle phase and chooses to give up), Hatch appears and it's kind of irrelevant at that point whether Survivor 4 finds it or not.
If Survivor 3 isn't on death hook, then Survivor 3 can attempt to self-unhook (or guarantee an unhook if they have certain perks). RNG based, improbable, doesn't necessarily change anything. Otherwise, Survivor 4 can then:
a) try and unhook Survivor 3, which puts us right back at either point 1 or 2 depending on whether the Killer is camping the hook or trying to find Survivor 4. Bad scenario, wastes everyone's time, probably doesn't change the outcome. Survivors who do this frustrate me because, from my perspective, they're prolonging the trial for no reason and may just be farming their teammate for BP.
or
b) wait out Survivor 3's ENTIRE hook time (can be as much as 140 seconds if they go through full Struggle phase) to try and get hatch. Bad scenario, wastes everyone's time, might result in an escape for Survivor 4 but leaves everyone feeling kinda bad about it.
How many of these outcomes are actually enjoyable for anyone? Almost none. Neither Killer nor Survivor should be able to drag out the end stage of the game as long as is currently possible.
I propose that, when the second Survivor is sacrificed and all generators have not been repaired, the Hatch should spawn and one Survivor can escape through it, triggering the endgame collapse. This means that Survivors cannot be held hostage in the game so easily by a Killer slugging for a 4k, and the chances of escaping go up at least a little, while still incentivising Survivors not to hide, since the Killer could close the Hatch prematurely and start the clock on the EGC. However, the Killer also gets their Final Mori or whatever we're calling it, so they can kill a downed Survivor without having to hook them. This obviates the need to slug in this scenario and also prevents either side from prolonging things with repeated pickups or downs.
All due respect, this is something of a kicking-the-can-down-the-path solution. This would just encourage killers to slug at 3 to minimize mobility before the hatch. I like the energy and your assessment breakdown of options is accurate, but I don't think spawning the hatch earlier helps any. In fact I'd argue hatch spawning at 2k would only encourage slugging and tunneling as well, as the ability to force a hatch spawn when you have memorized the positions of hatch means you can bypass the gen-rush issues by tunneling to two and engaging in fun-happy-chase-time, which is what many killers want when faced with the alternative of gen-rushing and looping a T/L until the heat death of the universe.
Then again, to expose my bias, I'm also of the 'get rid of hatch and add a third gate' school of thought. Hatch encourages ratting and the number of go-next behaviors I've seen when I hook the third is astonishingly more common than people actually playing out. I'd place the stats around 70%+ off the top of my head for go-nexting on Surv 3 hook.
The hatch idea was itself pretty nifty, but it's only begun to congeal into a larger behavioral problem as the meta secures around it. The meta being, from my personal experience and perspective only, 'If you are on the hook and two are dead, go-next to permit the fourth a hatch chance.' I don't blame surv's either, mathematically it's the most sound choice. However as long as that behavior continues, you'll see slugging on the third surv continuing to counter it.
It's just plays and counter-plays. It's not an exploit anymore than vaulting a pallet into the killers hitbox to avoid a hit is an exploit, or locker hopping to avoid a nurse is an exploit. -
Seems a bit strong. How would this interact with existing status effects, such as expose? In your imagining of it would the proposed idea trigger M1 effects, such as Rapid Brutality, Forced Penance, etc?
-
Seems a bit strong. How would this interact with existing status effects, such as expose? In your imagining of it would the proposed idea trigger M1 effects, such as Rapid Brutality, Forced Penance, etc?