Current vs total gen progress regression

TicTac
TicTac Member Posts: 2,403
in General Discussions

Its not about eruption even if its a recent example.

But im curious what you think about both and should one of these be standard for gen regression perks?

Numbers aside, bc right now most of the time the number doesnt change, so its a straight nerf. Normally 10% total gen progression should be changed to a higher current progression like 15%.

Current gen progression gives survivor another way to counter gen perks and also a comeback chance from a rough start. Its could be strong without completely destroying weaker teams. It makes 3-genning weaker.

Total progression is more reliable. The killer does get rewarded for the perk choice and its less rng. Also its better against survivor who split up on gens, atleast i think.

If i listed some wrong arguments about one of the two, please correct me.

Comments

  • jesterkind
    jesterkind Member Posts: 7,607

    I have noticed that the devs seem to be favouring current progress over total progress a little more, and in theory, I kind of like that. It gives regression more of an oomph towards the end of the trial when it'd be more necessary, and prevents the perks from getting entirely out of hand with stacking and high total numbers. I'd be all for it!

    ...Buuuut I do think some stuff needs to change on the survivor side before it'd be healthy for the game. Hyperfocus builds need to be nerfed, toolboxes need to be nerfed, and a few other high-impact generator speed things would need to be nerfed too. That way killers aren't just at a disadvantage, it's far more about how well people play.

  • Carth
    Carth Member Posts: 1,182
    edited February 2023

    Current is bad and a way of saying "this perk turns off if you're doing too good/use it in the wrong place". BHVR clearly is making it one of their goals to reduce killer snowballing. You can see another one of their brilliant ideas to do so in the ruin and corrupt intervention redesigns that basically say "turns off the second you are doing ok/good".

    I personally have two issues with this.

    1)"your perk doesn't exist in certain scenarios" is really the best idea they could come up with? Not perk values tied to number of living survivors? Or game length? Or number of procs? Or anything decent? Just "the perk basically doesn't do anything" if the gen isn't at 50%+

    2) where is this anti-snowball design on the survivor side? The games where survivors are good and for an m1 killer the first hook = ~3 gens done.