survivor0311
survivor0311
About
- Username
- survivor0311
- Joined
- Visits
- 13
- Last Active
Comments
-
@CrypticGirl said:
The self-unhook mechanic needs to stay, because there are just as many times when teammates can't or just won't save you from the hook, and you have to take your chance.
Also, removing the self-unhook will just enable the teammate to ruin the game in other ways. I've had teammates grief and screw around, still making a miserable match for the rest of us when they got saved before they could go next. That those actions are reportable means nothing, since the whole report system is crap anyway. You'd need video footage for proof, and 90% of the playerbase can't be bothered with that.
Since you're worried about not having the option to potentially save yourself, then we can have it so that once the sacrifice meter (or whatever you call it) drops to 50%, a skill check will appear: hit it and it's a toss up between you successfully unhooking yourself or proceeding to second stage. Missing the skill check means you will move to second stage like normal. But there shouldn't be any other self-unhook attempts (other than the ones I listed in the original post).
Also, your argument for not removing this tool that griefers use (self-unhooking) lest it enables other forms of griefing is flawed because if developers thought like that then no forms of griefing will ever be addressed. -
@PuddleOfBludd said:
So you want to promote more toxicity? This will just lead to allowing toxic survivors to farm in SoloQ. “I’ll just stay on this gen and leave them on hook. They can’t do anything about it.” Yeah, no thanks. I have already been in SoloQ games where I HAD to unhook myself because nobody was coming and I was almost to stage 2.This is a terrible suggestion.
My suggestion wasn't to promote toxicity. The idea of continuing to allow people to kill themselves and grief is.
And you can't say for sure if people were intentionally letting someone go to 2nd stage or not. Maybe they were far away and thought someone closer would get them. Maybe they weren't paying attention. My point is that if a survivor was left to go to 2nd stage, it probably wasn't intentional. But do you know what is? People killing themselves on hook.
Besides, if someone was toxic and wanted the person on hook to go to 2nd stage, they would do it regardless if my suggestion was implemented or not. If it was implemented, there would be one less form of griefing in the game. -
@PuddleOfBludd said:
So you want to promote more toxicity? This will just lead to allowing toxic survivors to farm in SoloQ. “I’ll just stay on this gen and leave them on hook. They can’t do anything about it.” Yeah, no thanks. I have already been in SoloQ games where I HAD to unhook myself because nobody was coming and I was almost to stage 2.This is a terrible suggestion.
My suggestion wasn't to promote toxicity. The idea of continuing to allow survivors to kill themselves and grief is.
And you can't say for sure if people intentionally wanted someone to reach 2nd stage or not. Maybe a survivor who was far away thought someone closer would go get them. Maybe they just weren't paying attention? My point is that it probably wasn't intentional. But do you know what is? People killing themselves on hook.
Besides if someone was intentionally letting someone go to 2nd stage and being toxic, they would do it regardless if my suggestion was implemented or not. If mine was implemented, there would be one less option of griefing in the game. -
@Paternalpark said:
If they do this. They can't consider this game as casual anymore.
Survivor has so much going against them whereas killer is solely responsible for their fun. I can't remember the last time I dc as killer.
How does removing the ability for survivors to kill themselves on hook make the game less casual? Killing yourself on hook and making it harder for your team to win is not good for the game no matter how you try to spin this.
And the second half of your statement does not make any sense:
1) Survivors do not have a lot going against them. It's a 4v1 (the survivors outnumber the killer). The survivors have to worry about 1 person whereas the killer has to worry about 4. Not only that but the survivors have many tools at their disposal to make things harder for the killer (sabotaging, blinding, stunning, looping, forcing the killer to break pallets to remove their bloodlust, etc). And perk-wise, the survivors have to deal with the killer's 4 perks (max) whereas the killer has to deal with the survivors' 16 perks (max). Just because the survivors can't attack the killer, it doesn't mean they have a lot going against them.
2) But let's say you're right "the survivors has so much going against them", if that is the case, then you're just reinforcing my point that when a survivor kills themselves on hook, it'll make it harder for their team to win than it already is.
3) What does your "killer is solely responsible for their fun" statement have anything to do with survivors killing themselves on hook?