When reporting a bug, please follow the template provided, otherwise the report will be declined. The information requested is vital to allow us to correctly reproduce and then fix what you are reporting.
Obsession Chance Reduction Breaks Obsession RNG
Reproduction:
So you have Survivors A, B, C, and D
Survivor A equips an obsession perk like Object of Obsession(+ obsession chance)
Survivor B equips a wedding ring addon (- obsession chance)
Survivor C and D equip nothing that affects who the obsession is.
In this scenario survivor A should always be the obsession but this does not happen.
Survivor B will never be the obsession, however, survivor A can potentially not be the obsession even though they always should be.
Scenario 2:
Having multiple wedding rings breaks things even more
Survivor A equips Object of Obsession (+ obsession chance)
Survivors B, C and D equip the wedding ring addon. (- obsession chance)
In this scenario, the reduced obsession chance stops working entirely. Survivor A should always be the obsession because he has an effect increasing his chance, and the other survivors should also never be the obsession because they have a reduced chance, however in this setup, the obsession is picked completely randomly. A can end up not being the obsession and B/C/D can all end up being the obsession, even though this should not be possible.
Comments
-
Well, in first place, it is a "chance". You posted yourself in the title that it is RNG. If you tested that like a 100 times and see each survivor is the obsession around 25 times, then you might report this as a bug
0 -
It might only reduce obsession by 3%, and gain by 3%. Without numbers of percent, we really can't calculate it.
Lets make a guess that its 3% difference for both, and create a scenario:
Survivor A equips Object of Obsession (+ obsession chance) 37%. (25% +3+3+3+3)
Survivors B, C and D equip the wedding ring addon. (- obsession chance) 21%, 21%, 21%. (25% -3 -1)
Its still a great chance difference.
0 -
That is not how it works. Run object for a few games and you will see that you are going to be the obsession every single time unless someone else uses an obsession perk.
0 -
The increased chance to be an obsession is 100%. It's in the code (according to the wiki).
0 -
Map offerings also just increase the chance. I actually saw it once happen that two different map offerings were burnt, and none of that was chosen.
You don't know how this is calculated. 100% increased efficiency means half of the charge consumption, 200% would mean 1/3.
So if you have a base percentage of 25% per survivor, that one survivor would be increased to 125%. That would mean 3 survivors each have 1/8 chance to be the obsession (12,5%) and the object is at 5/8 (62,5%).
I agree that, with your setup, it is definitely less than every third game being not the obsession. This is just as an example how 100% could be calculated and that 100% does not simply mean "always", as the above efficiency example also shows. No idea how obsession RNG is calculated, but when it says "increases the chances", then we simply talk about chances, and not determined outcome. Unless an official BHVR statement says something different and confirms bad wording of the perks. Which is possible, as the DS rework changed to not automatically make you the obsession, but it still has the same wording as before.
But I'm upvoting on this one, just to get clarification :) Also when you say scenario 2 seems completely random, then there might definitely be something wrong. At least in the majority of games, survivor A should be the obsession.
0 -
I don't equip any obsession perks while the other three I get matched with will run DS and every time I start match as the obsession. I know it's just a chance but I think they need to increase the chance for those running obsession perks.
0 -
wut? Efficiency doesn't equal chance. Obsession perks shouldn't have anything to do with charge efficiency. Chance and efficiency are completely different stats...
What I'm assuming the wedding ring actually does is increase every other survivor's chance to be an Obsession rather than decreasing the survivor's own chances (leaving the survivor using the ring at 0% chance).
P.S. Regarding your comment about maps, the map modifier for green offerings is 9999. (yellow is 2, and brown is 1).
0 -
I didn't say efficiency = chance. That was a sample calculation to show that 100% doesn't necessarily mean what you might expect.
And your assumption might be correct, but mine as well. We need an official statement on that. I can just say, I saw it happen that green map offerings didn't work. And that, because of that, the statement "this should not be possible" is most likely not correct.
0 -
What difference does it make? The obsession isn't anything special anyway.
- Dying light they should actively avoid killing you.
- Play with your food they should be letting you go.
- Save the best for less hitting you ruins their stacks.
- Nemesis and Furtive chase change the obsession a lot.
I don't understand why it would matter who the obsession was? It isn't like old dying light where you would get tunnelled to #########.
0 -
Obsession is still a target for most killers. Even when running the perks that should let the obsession live for a bit I still see them tunneled and killed first. Maybe the killers don't fully understand the point of the perks, or they just don't care. There's also archive challenges to hook obsession multiple times or kill them in multiple matches, these make the obsession a target.
If you are putting on a perk that increases your chances you should start as the obsession, not the players that don't equip an obsession perks. If it switches throughout the match due to a perk that is different, but someone with no obsession perks should not be starting as the obsession when there are players running obsession perks. If the players running obsession perks are not starting as the obsession then there's absolutely 0 downside to those perks.
0 -
Doesn't bother me at all.
I do seem to get selected as the obsession a lot. I don't use any obsession perks ever. I just have poor luck I guess, the same way I can try and get out of a trapper's trap 13times and not escape but everyone else on my team gets out first try. Ah well
0 -
2 reasons
1) object (and I think sole survivor) are more effective when you are the obsession
2) I learned this when me and my friends tried a gimmick where we had one obect and 3 other people with wedding rings and the person with object ended up not being the obsession.
0 -
Omg... I posted this huge explanation and all the notes to come to the conclusion... and it got wiped out after posting it somehow.
An ultra quick summary is that, if only one surv has an obsession perk, then its a true/false statement that they are true to be the Obsession. If there are multiple survs with obsession perks, one is chosen randomly between those obsession survs.
It would seem that Kind_Lemon is correct, that the Ring gives other survivors more chances and might not remove chances from the ring bearer.
If each survivor with an obsession perk gets 1 chance plus a chance from the obsession perk, and the ring bearers give each of the other survivors an additional chance, it works out mathematically to be in accordance with op's observations.
Scenario F: Everyone gets 1 chance, plus 1 chance for having an obsession perk, plus 1 chance per ring from other survivors, for a total of 5 chances. In op's scenario 2 this works out to 45% for Surv A, and 18% for each of the 3 ring bearers.
Surv A= (1+1)+1+1+1=5 (or 45%)
Surv B,C,D=(1-1)+1+1=2 (or 18%)
Totaling 11 chances.
Scenario G [Give]: If it were a binary situation, it doesn't work out mathematically. For instance, If there are two ring bearers, and everyone has 1 chance to be the obsession. (This Scenario G doesnt work out if we take into account that For the People both becomes the obsession, but also reduces chances if there are multiple obsession perk survivors.) Due to "For the People" perk reducing your chances, it can't be binary, but additive.
Scenario H: If each ring gave each other survivor 1 more chance to become the obsession, but survivor D was running For the People to reduce a chance.
I'm gonna guess that my Scenario F is the case here, and if so, then this is not a bug.
BUT its still a bug since the perk "For the People" is supposed to reduce its own chances of obsession. Its a bug because if OP is correct, that its just random in an on off system, then For the People doesn't actually reduce its chances, cause its fully random. Although I think OP is questioning the ring's ability to reduce chances of obsession.
(If my other post comes back, I'm deleting my post. This one right here.)
0 -
100% more means that it doubles the chances, not that it pushes something over 100% total. Its a weird one to explain, but here goes.
If the chances of being obsession was 80 points for each survivor, then it would add 100% of 80 more than it was. 80+80=160. Essentially doubling it. (I chose 80 due to it being a easily divided number, but also to match the same charges as a generator.) (A Generator requires 80 Charges to be completed.)
This would mean that Survivor A would have 160 chances, and the other 3 survivors would have 80 chances still. For a total of 400. Another way of stating it would be 160/400 chances total, or 2/5, or 40%.
In scenario 2 it could mean the survivors with reduced chances could have 0 chances. Lets say 3 survivors have 0, and one has 160. But... before we go any further, op states that survivor A is less likely to be the obsession, so we'll just stop cause he states thats not what happens. Also, if all survivors had a ring it would be 0,0,0,0 chances for a total of 0/0 chances for anyone to be the obsession, which might be trumped by the killer's obsession perk and activated anyway. But op already states its not working like that.
Lets try something SIMILAR to what Kind_Lemon mentioned.
In his idea, Kind_Lemon states that perhaps the ring doesn't reduce the survivor's chance, but raises other survivor's chances of becoming the obsession. This could mean that Survivor A gets 160+80 [the 80 comes from Surv D's Ring], Survivor B gets 80+80, Surv C gets 80+80, and Surivor D gets just 80. 340, 160, 160, 80 = 740 totaled. This certainly throws a wrench in against 'wanting' to be the obsession with Object of Obsession. It could give chances as follows: Surv A 3/8 chances, Surv B 2/8 chances, Surv C 2/8 chances, Surv D 1/8 chance.
If we take op's scenario 2, where survivor B,C,D each have rings, this works out correctly as well.
Survivor A equips Object of Obsession: (80 base chance +80 obsession chance) +80 from ring 1, +80 ring 2, +80 ring 3 = 80x5=400. (45%)
Survivors B: (80 base chance, -80 from ring1) +80 from ring 2, +80 from ring 3 = 80x2=160. (18%)
Survivors C: (80 base chance, -80 from ring2) +80 from ring 1, +80 from ring 3 = 80x2=160. (18%)
Survivors D: (80 base chance, -80 from ring3) +80 from ring 1, +80 from ring 2 = 80x2=160. (18%)
880 Total Chances. (Total of 99%s, which is why percentages cant be used in these calculations.)
(Interesting to note that if I had chosen 5% each in my original calculation in post 3, this would have been the same numbers! I was thinking 3-5 due to that being normal for most other perks and tools which I had been looking at, but thought 5% was too much.)
Here's more specific info on why this has got to be correct:
On the above link, it states: "Currently, any Unlockable stating that it either increases or decreases one's chance to become the Obsession will do so by a modifier value of 100 %."
Note that it doesnt state 100% and -100%. And we already proved it can't and doesn't zero out the ring holder's obsession chances, agreeing with ops remarks.
In the above link, it states: "If you're the only Survivor with an Obsession Perk, then become the Obsession." This is a true or false statement, either they are the Obsession, or more code runs.
The same link also states: "If multiple Survivors have an Obsession Perk, then the Obsession will be chosen randomly among the Perk holders." Which would mean that Kind_Lemon could be correct that the Ring gives everyone else 100% 'more'.
This perk seems to provide more answers: "You become the Obsession." Just like the other Obsession 'Perks', its a true/false statement. If there are no other Obsession Perked survivors, you are the obsession. But if there are more obsession perk survivors, then run more code to choose the obsession.
The link also states: "Decreases your chances of being the Obsession." Which would mean that if there are other survivors with Obsession chances (From perks or rings), then give those other survivors more chances at becoming the obsession, thereby reducing this survivor's chances. Got to wonder how this one stacks when paired with other Obsession Perks.
Now I want to throw another wrench into the works, that calculations could also come from how they add together add ons... or stacks. A flashlight uses its add ons in order from left to right, making the first add on affect the flashlight, and the second add on affect the first add on. It stacks. Therefore, IF IT STACKS, Survivor A's obsession chances could be messed up [reduced/raised] depending on if they were First or After the Survivor D whom had the Ring. (I know, stacking is a really messy thought.) (Stacking seems to imply multiplication.)
If the Perk "For the People" was first, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the survivor's perk list, and then stack that on top of if they were first in the lobby/load order, versus 2nd, 3rd, 4th. (From the wording on the wiki, it doesn't seem to matter of the killer's perks if a survivor is using any Obsession Perks at all.) (Obsession seems to imply true/false, or additive. I'm not sure which, or both.)
In conclusion, if my summary of all our guess work is correct, this would not be a bug.
0
