Last survivor's immediate sacrifice
Comments
-
Cause you'll just be face camped anyways and then die. I'd be ok with giving them points equal to the struggle, but it'd just be boring to have to sit and wait for your death to move onto the next round.
2 -
You can't escape if you are the last one.
1 -
@Tiersis said:
Cause you'll just be face camped anyways and then die. I'd be ok with giving them points equal to the struggle, but it'd just be boring to have to sit and wait for your death to move onto the next round.Generally it's true, but if the killer hits the unhooking survivor before the player has control over their character, the attack is void and the survivor, maybe with Adrenaline, can run away. Rare, but not impossible.
0 -
the idea itself is dumb.Entità said:@Tiersis said:
Cause you'll just be face camped anyways and then die. I'd be ok with giving them points equal to the struggle, but it'd just be boring to have to sit and wait for your death to move onto the next round.Generally it's true, but if the killer hits the unhooking survivor before the player has control over their character, the attack is void and the survivor, maybe with Adrenaline, can run away. Rare, but not impossible.
As far as I read before they didn't go sacrifices instantly an was a problem. Longer to end the game and get camped plus the void attack you talk about has been removed and even if was there still the killer would just wait an extra second. Its a stupid idea just to give a free escape or a free chance, another one punishing the killer for doing a good job with a 4k0 -
Wrong, if even the devs took it out from the game after seeing what I just told you, just prolong the game, why you want to put it back?
They saw this in the beta and after the launch of the game. Would just repeat the cycle over again, why not instead be stealthy or look for the ha tc before? You would be able to get out for free already since the hatch is broken rn and even in a stand off survivors have the upper hand even uf for both I boring asf0 -
Are you saying me that in the first version of the game the last survivor's sacrifice followed the normal procedure?
0 -
yes, said twice now trice but they noticed didn't worked out then got rid of itEntità said:Are you saying me that in the first version of the game the last survivor's sacrifice followed the normal procedure?
I started playing just 3-4months ago but I just had to open the wiki and read the patch notes.
Isn't hard, just do some research before maybe someone else had your same idea or maybe not, just Check to be sure
Little tip: in every context try to debunk your own theory, if you can't then share it, otherwise rethink about it and make it more solid. Be wrong is good since you can improve from that, wish more people thinks like this..0 -
It's a question of priorities: I personally don't like a player is deprived of just one hundred percent chance to win, but the Developers probably felt more important a speedy endgame. Legitimate choice, but not the only reasonable or acceptable one. Nevertheless, that more important need doesn't justify at all the survivor, immediately sacrificed, is deprived of their struggle points: about this limited question, the endgame should be fixed.
0 -
@Malakir Hey just popped into this thread because I thought maybe someone had an interesting idea to share, but I have to say I'm a little disappointed with the way you're treating a fellow community member.
Yes they could of looked to see if the idea had already been presented or tried, but your decision to belittle and berate him because of it is not constructive criticism, its just bullying.It would be more productive for everyone if you said something like the following instead:
@Entità This is a good idea in theory, but has actually been tested both in the beta and after launch and has proved to not work out as it always resulted in slowing down the game overall. I got this information off of the DbD wiki, which is a great source for information pertaining to previous mechanics or ideas that were scrapped, so I recommend checking it out when you have some free time.See? its a nicer way to say exactly the same thing, except it encourages @Entità to come back in the future with new ideas that are better thought out and prepared, instead of making them feel dumb and like they are unwelcome.
With that said I want to avoid derailing this thread any further, so I would like to say that there is some merit to the idea of maybe not letting the survivor have a full attempt, but at least letting them attempt any "last chance" perks like Deliverance. Something like that could easily be implemented by changing the sacrifice from instant to a 5 second delay, giving the survivor enough time to at least attempt an escape before dying.
Sure 99% of the time it wouldn't really make a difference since the killer is very likely to have just stuck around...but that 1%, that glorious 1% chance that you not only free yourself from certain doom but even manage to make it to the hatch in time and escape would possibly be the greatest feeling of excitement and accomplishment this game has to offer. Sure it would suck for a killer to lose a secured kill, but at the same time I'd like to think a killer would be more impressed with the absolute luck and skill required to pull off such a feat that it would greatly lessen the overall frustration and instead fill it with amazement that they got to witness such a rare event first hand.Of course that's romanticizing the outcome, when the more likely reaction would just be truckfulls of salt, but its still a fun idea
1 -
@PoppaSquat If I learnt something about this kind of things, treat people nice won't help. Like saying good job to a coworker for his semi decent work. Being rude makes you have bad feelings towards me which is fine since at the end they would do anything to prove me wrong, even actually do some research and dig into the subject.
In the other hand if you are nice they just accept their thoughts without even trying to challenge theirs, they just accept you are wrong and they are right in their heads which I think is way worse than get hate but incentive the person to think a better idea of support his original on with some thoughts behind.
People are more prone to do something if its against someone else that's why in almost any post I might look rude or bad in any way. That's my goal, have a decent conversation even if means make people dislike me, I accepted this deal long ago1 -
@Malakir I do see what you are going for with this approach and agree in some situations it can really help to push an individual to perform at their best (I was raised in a family of four, so I'm quite familiar with the competitive spirit and how effective it can be), but in a brainstorming session such as a suggestion thread, there really isn't a "best" or "worst" idea but rather varying levels of effective ideas.
I've worked in a leadership role for a good number of years working on technical projects, and do believe striving for excellence is required when working on something with a concrete goal that has a best possible outcome, but when ideas are what is needed, chastising only serves to hurt the creativity of the group or individual, and tends to shut down all future discussion.My argument isn't to tell them they're right or wrong, or even that their idea is good or bad, but rather to use the idea, regardless of its merit, as a jumping off point for new ideas.
Ultimately while I don't personally agree with your methods, it would be unfair and hypocritical of me to say you shouldn't take the approach you feel is best, so if you've found your methodology to be conducive then I fully encourage you to carry on. But I do ask you take at least a moment to think on what I've said, and maybe even see if incorporating some of the ideas into your current outlook can be used to enhance your effectiveness overall
1 -
An easy fix would be to give the last Survivor Partial Struggle points, much in the way a DC gives killers a portion of the points as if they had sacrificed someone, Thus making it so you'd rather escape or be not the last hook for points, but giving the final person some partial boost as if they had struggled a bit.
In no version of this do I want normal struggle on last hook back.
1 -
@Malakir "People" don't exist: instead, there are 7 billions of individuals, each with their own personality, opinions, dreams, emotions, and behaviours. It's not logical to extend your experience and knowledge to the all mankind: not every person will react as you expect. Nevertheless, I appreciate your genuine answers.@PoppaSquat Thanks for your words.@Tiersis DC is different from a killing: the game treats it like surrendering to avoid a survivor can steal the killer their points. But there are no difference between the first and the last struggling: they deserve the same reward, provided they have the same duration.1
-
@Peanits Don't you think the last survivor, immediately sacrificed, deserves at least the full struggling points? I understand, even without agreeing, that the Devs want a speedy endgame, so the last survivor, even if hooked for the first time, has to die, but why are they deprived of their points?
0 -
@Entità said:
Why is the last survivor immediately sacrificed if hooked?Back in the day, the last survivor didn't die immediately on the hook and this was, as per tradition with the toxicity connected to survivors, used to waste 2+ minutes of the killers time by struggling until the very end, making games extremely ######### boring.
0 -
@se05239 Yes, some people told me the history. I don't agree that people hooked for the first time are deprived of their three attempts to unhook themselves, while second phase is only a waste of time. If Devs don't want to restore the first phase, at least they should give the last survivor the full struggling points.0
-
Because nobody likes waiting 2 mins even though the game is over already0
-
@Master That's my point.Entità said:@se05239 Yes, some people told me the history. I don't agree that people hooked for the first time are deprived of their three attempts to unhook themselves, while second phase is only a waste of time. If Devs don't want to restore the first phase, at least they should give the last survivor the full struggling points.
0 -
Well it's not really a good idea, it would prolong the end game for no really good reason.Entità said:@Malakir No free escape nor free chance, but the same possibilities every survivor has: no special advantages, no punishments for the killer. I hate the idea that a side should be "punished": I like a game balanced and funny for both parties.
0 -
I started reading through the thread but then it devolved into arguing, so my two cents is simply that the last Survivor to be sacrificed should gain a 1000BP bonus in the Survival category due to the already mentioned reason of them not being able to go through the struggle phase and thus don't get the ~900 points for it. I also think the points for a complete struggle phase should be higher, like 2000BP, but ah well.
0 -
why?
cause there is no hope left for that guy. he cant be saved, he cant 4% off the hook without immediantly getting rehooked and this would just make the game last longer for no reason, while the survivor gets his struggle points and dies.0 -
@Mister_xD If they were allowed to unhook themselves and succeeded in doing so, they would earn 1,500 BP, and about 90/1,000 for the following struggling phase. It's not completely irrelevant. Would you accept the last survivor's sacrifice gives no points to the killer?
0 -
@Entità said:
@Mister_xD If they were allowed to unhook themselves and succeeded in doing so, they would earn 1,500 BP, and about 90/1,000 for the following struggling phase. It's not completely irrelevant. Would you accept the last survivor's sacrifice gives no points to the killer?or you could acceot your defeat and go to the next game where you will earn more than 1.5k BP (i hope)
0 -
@Mister_XD It's a false approach: the matters of principle cannot be treated with pragmatic resign to injustices. Give me a reason why the last survivor should be deprived of their struggling points. The need of a faster endgame can justify that the second phase is omitted to save time, but giving points should not slow the end of the trial.
0 -
@Malakir said:
Entità said:Are you saying me that in the first version of the game the last survivor's sacrifice followed the normal procedure?
yes, said twice now trice but they noticed didn't worked out then got rid of it
I started playing just 3-4months ago but I just had to open the wiki and read the patch notes.
Isn't hard, just do some research before maybe someone else had your same idea or maybe not, just Check to be sure
Little tip: in every context try to debunk your own theory, if you can't then share it, otherwise rethink about it and make it more solid. Be wrong is good since you can improve from that, wish more people thinks like this..
ya. unhooking yourself when u were the last one in the match back in the day usually just resulted in you dying again and survivors complaining about it as if they're supposed to get a free pass for "kobe-ing" im a survivor main, i dont expect killers to respect a kobe. i've played too long to realize its not a logical expectation to have.
0 -
@DukeJukem Read all the thread, please: now the point is to give the last survivor the full struggling points.
0
