Perk: Don't kick this
The idea about changed shattered hope gave me an idea.
One of the most oppresive thing survivor can bring right now is supposed to be CoH. So it's customary for killer mains to suggest some kind of nerf to that one. Last one was making best survivor perk work against said survivors if they bring the perk. Which made me thing - what about making the same thing for survivor?
So the idea is simple - After doing 50% of generator. Any time killer damages gen in any way, the effect is reverted and applied in reverse. So Eruption will progress gen for 10% and does not apply incapacitated. OC makes generator repair itself from 75% to 200% if not kicked again. Jolt progresses this gen instead of regress. Etc.
Right now killer kicking perks are very oppresive as is. So having something to reverse the effect might actually make things leveled. Especially if shattered hope idea would go thru.
Comments
-
Making the easy role even easier and overpowered? You're definitely BHVR dev material.
8 -
What? This is survivor buff. not killer buff. It's buff to actually weaker role. Check stats. 60% kill rate. SoloQ can't handle anything. Even best survivors have 50% escape rate on soloQ. Best killers have exactly 100% win rate - 530 games in a row. Only SWF have almost equal chance against killers. And yet as killer I win much much more then survivor
0 -
I like how you immediately lead with some pearl clutching us-vs-them nonsense immediately. Really makes your idea seem unbiased and worth considering.
That being said, a single survivor perk that can nullify an entire suite of killer perks is patently ridiculous. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and just written a capslock post about how killers are op and they need to be gutted blah blah blah. Same effect.
5 -
No. It has activation condition (need to do 50% of gen to activate it). Also it activates on single gen. I thought that's clear from what I have written.
Basically it has same principle - revert huge buff if someone applies it on that single instance but leave all the other instances intact. It's the same principle as killer wanting to have 1 perk that negates entire suite of survivor perks. Same principle. Same risks involved.
Also what is wrong with stressing that it's actual survivors that are loosing way more then killers? And why should I not use same principle of perk buff that stronger role already asks to have? It's simply just about balance. If you add something to one side, it's only natural someone else would want to have same stuff on the other side.
0 -
This may be the worst perk idea I have ever seen.
6 -
Self-repairing generators!
Ha!
Now I've heard it all.
2 -
SWF does not even imply coms, if you put 4 good players in a team without communication they will still do better than people in soloq just because the matchmaking is so broken, so your conclusion is flawed from the beginning... The reasons comp squads perform that well are 1. They are all really good players by themselves 2. They have better coordination and information because of communications... If you delete the second reason by not using comms they will still play far better than your average soloq dudes... If 4 really good players play in a group withoutcoms they would still outperform the average soloq people, even if they used coms...
As for the perk itself, the boon thing only applied to boon totems with somewhat limited range as well as effect and you could avoid it by just not being in the area the boon was. But this thing applies to any regression perk and killer does not even have a clue that the perk is in this specific game... Survivors could leave the area of the negative boon, but what can killer do? He cannot even regress the gen the perk has effected... Or can he double kick them to just instantly negate it again? I don't like the idea at all.
0 -
I would allow double kick.
And I see it as same kind of weaponry - take meta perk and create something that will turn it 180 so that you will think if you want to bring that meta stuff.
0 -
How is Jolt meta dude xD Not every gen regression perk is meta... Nah dude not a good plan...
1 -
Why you shouldn't apply the same principle killers asked for?
Because you don't do it. You take a idea that focuses about turning the boon effect around and apply it to gens. Two completely different things that argument would have worked if you either proposed a idea where you turn around a hex effect or if someone had made the idea to make a perk that turn unhooking or even healing around. Cause that's killer objective like gens are survivor objective.
Boons are side hustle that give positive effects but aren't necessari for winning the game just like a hex
0 -
Aren't roles then "technically" balanced then? If we go by %.
50% would mean that every game, 2 survivors will die.
60% means that every game 2 survivors will die and maybe a 3rd one. Which gives the power role (killers) the advantage they should have.
0 -
Killer can most of the time secure 1 K, which is why they want the kill rate be above 50 %, because the 1ks would push the average down.
0 -
why? Why in multiplayer game one team should win even if they don't earn it? Would you be OK in any other game if you lost because you are on specific team? Say in LoL you probably loose because you are blue team?
Sure the game is asymmetrical and that's fine. It means one side does different thing than the other side. It should by no means mean that one side should be handed win over the other side for free. Also why do you thing it's killers that deserve free wins instead of survivors (I think no side should get free wins BTW)?
0 -
Ok then add a mechanics that survivors can get 1 free escape every match. Make hatch play easier for survivor. Make it so that last survivor will most likely escape (even if killer decides to slug) to balance out killer being able to secure 1K most of the time
0 -
You cannot compare LOL or other symmetrical games with DBD... Btw. In Dota for example either dire or radiant has a 1-2% higher win rate overall... Sometimes lower... And if we take CSGO or Starcraft 2 maps are either favored for T or CT or for the different races.. So even there are differences.
0 -
The hatch already is that kind of counter measure, because the survivor can still get out even if the killer closes the hatch... That kind of evens it out... I think they also said that 0ks are really rare, 1ks are similarly often to 3 KS 4 KS are happening more often than 0ks but not that much more often and 2ks are the most.
0 -
ok. I will accept 1 or 2% difference. That's fine. 10%+ difference is not fine.
Also win/loose is symmetrical in DBD. You either kill/survive or you don't. If this part was also asymmetrical (you could both escape and get killed somehow - which is stupid by itself of course), then we can talk about asymmetrical win percentages (they should overlap somehow so that both sides have same overall chance to win).
0 -
So it means killer being able to secure 1K does NOT change percentages then, because 1E counters it. Means that there's imbalance in main game that should be evened out (IMO mainly in soloQ being so absolutely horrible right now).
0 -
I think both (securing 1k most of the time) as well as an rng mechanic that gives you a somewhat high chance to escape as the last person (the hatch and if closed gates) are stupid mechanics if we want this to be more balanced... Getting 1k should require player skill and the same goes for escaping as the last person alive.
0 -
You're misunderstanding me.
This is an asymmetrical game. So by logic, the side with less characters should be as powerful or more powerful than the team that has more players in it.
Nowhere did I say that any side should get a free win??
0 -
In theory you are right, but in practice I disagree. If one side played that much better, it would make sense for them to win fully - from this POW I agree that 1K and 1E should not be so "free" is they are now.
However suppose you are in loosing match (does not matter what side). You see you are weaker then the other side and the chance for you to win is very low at this point. Why should you be even trying at this point? What motivates you to not go AFK at this point (or in worse case for survivor to hide indefinitely stalling the game as much as possible)? Yes killer having endgame camping to secure a kill and survivor having chance at hatch are required so that the other side keeps playing the game.
0 -
It is not entirely even with the 3ks since hatch offers a lower chance to escape than the 1k...i however don't know what the odds are, but since the killer would need to find the hatch first and be able to patrol the gates that would lead to a higher escape than kill rate for the last survivor... If I had to guess somewhere between 60 and 70% let'say killer find the hatch first in 54% of cases because of higher movements speed but now the survivor can still get the gates which is probably again fairly even, maybe somewhat killer sided, fair enough at that point, we will end up somewhere in the 60/70/75% range.
0 -
But you talked about percentages and being fair that killers get more then 2 kills on average. So I will ask again. If 2K/2E is middle ground and exact tie. Why should one side (any side for that matter) get more then that (on average)?
0 -
Because they're the power role. (The killer in this instance)
0 -
Yeah that's the point which is why there needs to be a mechanic to give the last one a chance to escape but make it less rng.
0 -
But they already are. Even if it's single player, he should be able on average wipe out 2 players from the game. What's that if not power role? But you want to go even beyond that. You want them to have free wins (more then 50% of enemy team eliminated by SINGLE player).
I can agree with that. If you give good suggestion, I would 100% support you. For both sides (but sure survivor side is MUCH MUCH more about RNG then killer's side - IMO killer side is OK the way it is right now, but sure enough there could always be improvements).
0 -
I guess we just have diffrent definition of a power role then. Imo killers should have more than 50% but lower than 60% killrate. That just makes sense to me. (Also can you stop with "free wins"? I didn't say anywhere I want either side to have free wins, I'm just breaking down the statistic you used with logic)
1 -
Anything about 50% kill rate IS FREE WIN. Win by survivor is defined if he escapes. For killer it's if they kill or not (killer playing 4 matches at the same time during 1 game). It's like playing in chess but one (enemy) side has only 1 horse and you saying that's fine, because I should have advantage because "I said so" or because magic word "power role" (what does that exactly mean? Why should it magically mean you get more wins just by choosing "this team"?).
The reason why I don't care about 1 or 2% difference is, that every game that is not symmetrical is hard to perfectly balance. And it's interesting when 2 sides do different things to actually win over the other. For this reason low percentage advantage for the other side is acceptable in the name of making the game more interesting. But the idealistic goal should be (and now I go 100% fully generally for every game) - each side having equal chance to win the game over every other side (so 33.3333...% if there are 3 teams and so on).
0 -
Even in really balanced games 1-2% is normal, since dbd is asymmetrical even 5-10% could be somewhat reasonable.
0 -
1-2% is normal, but NOT goal. The problem is, that devs TARGET 60%
0 -
Perk: Average Soloq Squad
All survivors start hooked
0 -
So what, it does not seem like it is possible to make it better than those 1-2%...so what does the goal matter if they cannot reach it... The debs target is 10% more because of reasons specifically of this game... Because 1k is rather easy to get... If you tunnel someone out you will almost guaranteed have 1 K... I don't know how to avoid this if you don't want to share hook states between all survivors.
0 -
Survivors already have an anti-kicking perk. It's repressed alliance.
0 -
And blast mine
1 -
Ok I will repeat myself. If 1k is easy and there are good reasons for it, then 1e should be just as easy (and for the same reasons). Canceling both "easy" effects out.
0 -
I didn't necessarily say that there are good reasons for it to be easy, but more you would need to change a lot about the game for it to not be easy...
As for the canceling it out getting the hatch or gate as the last survivor is fairly easy depending on the map maybe even free... If you are on the game and just wait at one gate for the killer to kick the hatch you are safely out most of times, if the killer does not have special mobility. There are some maps where this works really consistently. The same thing apply when the gates are really far apart and cannot be seen from some point in the middle of the map, this also makes it fairly easy to get out, maybe if you want to be safe just 20% it and then after the killer left again finish it... If the situation does not favor you in that way you still have almost the same chance as the killer to find the hact, if he hits you while looking for it even better, because of the speed boost you can cover more of the map, the best thing in these cases is mostly to just follow the survivor and close hact in front of their nose.
Overall the situation favors the survivor by a whole lot (unless you are a killer with really high mobility, and even then depending on map size and other factor you still might be at a disadvantage.
0 -
so you agree that camping single survivor endgame cancels out with escaping as last via hatch or gate. Cool. So now that that's out of the way... Why should 60% kill rate be fair?
0 -
Not necessarily that but you can also count the tunneling one survivor out immmediatly in that category...
I would say it cancels it out so some degree, but not entirely, and that's why in the end it should be above 50%... Having it somewhat in the middle between 2 and 3 K on average... Also when you are tunneling someone out or camp one guy during endgame at least you are chasing someone and the person can try to avoid getting downed... Unless ofc they are in a complete dead zone... Getting out with hatch or gate as last survivor has far more RNG I think...
If hatch and the tunneling endgame camping one person scenarios would be removed entirely we could look at those cleaned numbers and the evaluate on what we currently are and what has to be done... But as it is now I think 55-60% is quite balanced, considering what type of game we have here.
0 -
so if it does not cancel out, then there's a place for a survivor buff in this specific aspect. The easiest one would be to make opening gates take less time (say 15s). What I would actually like to see is spawning (opened) hatch when last survivor is standing (meaning slugging for 4K is no longer an option).
Would you say that under these conditions 50% would be fair? (if we keep the current state of game)
But sure - changing the endgame to be more skill based instead of luck based would feel better. So long as it's overall balanced toward 50% killrate as a target
0 -
I really don't like slugging for the 4k but if you make it like that then some adepts would be really annoying and the hatch play would be even more rng... And ofc it would need to work with only 2 suevs left because otherwise you can get 4 people out with 5 Gens against legion... Just get all into mending, use a hatch offering 3 go down near it due to mending and the last standing activates hatch open and ez game.
In the normal game 15 second gate time is fine, but in the last man standing situation I don't like it because this is already survivor aided and that would make waiting at an exit gate for the hatch to get kicked even easier...
0 -
Agree on the first point (which could/should suffice as full solution. Do the hatch at strictly 2 players where 1 is downed).
But if first point is not enough, then about the second thing - I just want to have same percentage between last camped person vs last escaping person. How can one be too easy and not get the result of the other one that is ok and not free? I see discrepancy. If 15s as specific number is too much in your opinion, I can acknowledge that and ask for different number. But if it's systematic and killer just deserves 1k "no matter what" and survivor should instead have a roll of dice, then this does not look fair to me. Make the chances the same. So make last escaping a little easier or securing last kill a little harder. Overall I want fair balanced game results between different teams.
0 -
I mean you can get a 4 man out against most killers with bodyblocking and if the survivor is not hooked on the opposite side of the map... But this depends on the skill of the players, the killer and the map rng... Whereas the hatch play is basically pure rng...
It is not necessarily about being easy but rather if it requires skill to pull off. The further the game progresses the stronger the killer becomes (due to the map becoming barren and the area he needs to patrol getting smaller, so given that concept of the game it is kind of fine that getting the fourth guy out from getting camped requires more skill from the survivors than from the killer... But that also somewhat contradicts that the hatch situation is in favor of the survivor again... Even when you are tunneling someone out in the most blatant way at least you need to use your skill to chase them down, I think it is really boring to do... But when you are both looking for the hatch it is just rng heavy...
0 -
I can agree with that. I would also like it more if the endgame was less RNG based and more skill based. Hatch and gate spawns can guarantee 1 side win with basically nothing the other side can do (works for both sides).
0
