Survivors should have Unbreakable Basekit...WHEN:
Comments
-
It has everything to do with ego. If it wasn't ego driven a player wouldn't care if they got 3 kills, plus 2 hooks and the last survivor who managed to get the hatch and get lucky. It is purely an ego issue of "i must getz the 4 k." I play every bit as much on the killer side as I do on the survivor side. I don't have to get the 4k to feel like I've succeeded. One of my favorite things is the scratched mirror Myers. I've gotten every survivor two hooked and then just stopped and let them all leave. Doesn't impact my day, the fun was in the hunt and the jumpscares. When the game stopped being about having fun and the killers turned it into I must have 4 k or I failed, that's an issue.
As to your last point. You completely butchered the use of words there. Utilitarians want people to be happy. Sociopaths don't care whether other people are happy.
Utilitarianism will focus on the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but that doesn't mean they ignore the sacrifice of the few. As for if the game would survive making the 4 happy at the cost of the 1, well they are doing just fine making the 1 happy at the cost of the four. This forum proves that as everyday you see people upset about slugging, camping and tunneling. It's taken 7 years and they are just now starting to work on the anti-camp. It won't hurt the game one bit if they force the killers into hooking survivors, you know the actual point of the game as you said, the way to sacrifice them to the entity (which is the point of the game, not killing them but sacrifcing them to the enity.) Letting them bleed out is actual not the point of the game, hence why you need to use a special item to actual "kill" a survivor yourself.
1 -
the devs have, however, implemented plenty of in-game mechanics that allow survivors to avoid getting put on hook even after being downed. maybe instead of acting as if you're entitled to a hook... sorry, to a "kill" (your word) on downing a survivor, and then accusing others of being entitled, you should instead try reading the tutorial tips that teach players the various ways of avoiding getting hooked after going down, and then try rereading my extremely sarcastic post reminding you of those mechanics that directly contradict your assertion that down = hook or down = kill.
this isn't about me being bothered by anything, this is about you forgetting a large percentage of the features of this game you ostensibly play a lot of
0 -
1) You're not making an argument, you're repeating what you previously said. You're not psychic - you don't know what motivates people, what they're thinking. Yet you speak so matter-of-factly. You're taking how you play and deciding anyone that plays differently must be wrong. You're happy to settle for less than is asked of you, so anyone that doesn't must have an ego problem. They don't.
2) As for my last point, I did not butcher anything. You're pushing for the happiness of the many at the expense of the few because you only have concern for the many. Because you are one of the many. It was an intentional phrase to illustrate a point you clearly missed - you're so hellbent on making the many happy, you've actually forgotten the few are also real people, or simply just didn't care in the first place - you don't care about one half of the player-base, and that's the problem. Everyone that's ever advocated Killer players be punished for playing the game has done that - you're no different. Utilitarian ideals don't exclude harming people, they simply advocate for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian sociopathy is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people -- always the side the person making the argument happens to be on -- while being acutely aware that you're achieving that good by directly harming others (see: your what's good for business argument - Survivor players create more income so the needs of Killer players are a distant secondary concern). That may even be the intention in some instances.
If you paid attention, in the slightest, Killer players aren't exactly having fun either - maybe even less. If you'd been more keen to sit and think about what the words meant in the context they were used rather than try to gotcha me with the googled definitions of both words (utilitarian certainly has more definitions and nuance), I wouldn't have needed to explain anything. Also, no, I didn't say hooking was the actual point of the game - I said killing the Survivors was the objective, which it is. We're not talking lore reasons, we're talking mechanics and win conditions. Hooking, mori, bleeding out, time over; they all achieve that. I didn't advocate making any of those choices on anyone else's behalf.
3) And yes, forcing Killers to hook Survivors will hurt the game. Taking autonomy away from players will do exactly that: where they can stand and how long, who they can chase and when, when they have to hook. Yes-no, stop-go, red-light-green-light. If you want to play against someone locked into a binary series of choices, go start a petition for Killer bots. No human actually wants to play that game.
Post edited by Raconteurminator on0 -
Then try again next game killers don't always have to 4K. You won already clearly with 3K + hatch escape. Still killee has better chance to 4K than to survivor get hatch. I find it 80% of the time before last survivor and match does not last half as long or more than normally.
0 -
Well you just waste both of us time I have to spent 4 minutes looking for you. I only slug for 4K if I can get both survivors down in about 30-40s. Just in last match victorio went down to pallet and elodie staying around trying pallet save so ofcourse I down both and take the 4K. I only try 4K that way if I see both of you so stay hidden and I hook the 3rd. I never try 4K if I don't know where last is and only try greedy 4K if I need it for adept or challenge or bully survivor.
0 -
In some situations it can be greedy but then you can use it to your advantage so that why I don't mind it. Usually endgame situations are most fun winning agains't all the odds is very satisfying.
Clear situation were it is greedy is bubba camping and survivors still trying the save they have succeed maybe once agains't me but I was beginner then. Now that has resulted many more kills for me I know how to deny trade on bubba.
Another greedy situation is if survivor is hooked on basement or furthest away possible from exit. But survivors not saving someone hooked next to exit is not in anyway greedy. I don't know if you play survivor but it does feel very bad left behind when you could been easily saved.
What I would say is greedy when there is 2 left in endgame collapse you get another down around exit and other sabotages the close hooks basically you should have quaranteed that kill. Or I don't know but it does not feel right being denied kill that way.
0 -
I almost exclusively play survivor. My point, again, is that even when its near guaranteed, going for the last minute 4-out save is just as greedy as slugging for the 4k.
0 -
This isn't philosophy or world history.
This is a business.
More players will be upset if they don't fix the issue than the tiny handful of killer mains that will be upset they have to use hooks.
Think the devs don't know that, look at what happened to gen regression and look at the fact that the Devs have said they plan to install an anti-camp mechanic. An anti-tunnel and anti-slug will certainly be on the way as well at the current rate.
The world evolves, so do games. Players have to change their playstyle all the time. Any good long running game does this by keeping the largest portion of it's client base happy. Sure a few killer mains will be upset and leave, but there will always be the players who play both sides and don't care about these changes and new players who come in and only know these changes.
0 -
Slugging for 4K and bleeding the survivor out 4 minutes is incredibly boring and wastes lot of time. Saving in the endgame is opposite it's entertaining and exciting for both sides. Maybe both things are greedy but trying saves is good thing. So which one these should get some fix that's the point of the thread?
I don't find slugging at all greedy if you see both survivors that is totally understandable reason to slug you know you can quickly get both down. Even it's fine to do quick look around when you down second last.
Only problem is the other survivor might crawl away to corner and you have to search which I think just wastes time and is boring too. I could say that's greedy at that point survivors could just stay where they are and accept the lose.
For me getting 4K:s without slugging has never been problem I almost always find hatch first. Gates being otherside of the map is what could get fixing. I think after closinf hatch killee deserves the kill if he can quard the exits which should be possible always but not when they're too far away.
0 -
If you didn't want a simple phrase that was applied contextually to be explained to you, you shouldn't have ignored most of what I was saying in order to hyper-focus on it and derail the conversation. You didn't care about the term I used, in fact you full well understood it - you just wanted to condescend and distract from your own non-argument. Then, when it no longer served as a distraction, you simply hand-waved it as unimportant to the discussion.
Deeming one portion of the player-base worthless of consideration because it's smaller is exactly what I said it was - utilitarian sociopathy. Their needs are lesser, the negative impact of any changes on them are insignificant to you because you're out here serving the greater good and they're in your way, etc. Changes bad enough to drive players away from Killer -- potentially en masse -- because of how un-fun and restrictive they are will never make for good retention of newer players. The vast majority of people that play Killer already understand the effectiveness of hooks and the effectiveness of choosing when to hook. What they're not going to want is to be told they have to hook or be punished. That's the game making their choices for them.
Yes, there'll be new players to replace the old ones, but there's no guarantee there'll be an endless stream of newer players to replace the replacements when they find the whole experience lacking autonomy and interaction. Even if those newer players know no different, know nothing of previous metas and mechanics, they're still experiencing tiresome and arbitrarily punishing gameplay (e.g. proposed anti-tunnelling mechanics) that will drive them from the game sooner rather than later - or at least from playing Killer, which has the same effect. Survivors can't chase themselves.
Players have to change their playstyle all the time? Like how Survivors had the same meta for the best part of, what, five years? Survivor core mechanics (not to be confused with playstyle) have pretty much always been the same, whereas what Survivors are advocating is lobotomising Killer mechanics at the base level and changing not how they choose to play but how the game functions around them and forces them to play.
I will now use the words: "avocado time-machine" so you may hyper-focus on them. You're welcome.
0 -
You're arguing a point here I was never trying to make my taking my comment both out of context and as literally as possible. The discussion is about slugging for the 4k when there are two survivors left. I wasn't saying that each and every down should be a guaranteed kill. I was saying that in the scenario where there are two survivors left (the killer has already gotten a minimum of 6 hook stages while preventing the survivors from completing their objective), and a 4K is in sight and all he has to do to secure that 4k is leave a person on the ground for a bit, then yeah, he's earned the 4K.
0 -
Not unbreakable for sure. Just an option for an instant bleed out.
0 -
Fair enough, I thought you were arguing "one down should always equal one hook" which is a point I've seen unironically posted here before, but rereading it should have been clear that wasn't the case, my bad. I didn't mean to misrepresent you but I did misunderstand when you were fairly clear and that's on me.
I would argue that you're wrong; the game is 5 gens + exit gates for survivor or 12 hook states across 4 survivors for killer. If 6 hooks + 1 down is a valid win condition for killer, then it should equally be fair for 4 completed gens (or fewer if a survivors have been eliminated) + 1 hatch opened with a key to be a valid win con for survivors. Slugging for the 4k after getting barely over half the intended objective done is, IMO, comparable to the old hatch mechanics in terms of bypassing the supposed standard win condition, and equally frustrating for the majority of the player base who plays casually for fun.
0 -
Oh ok, that was an genuine misunderstanding then, I thought you were doing that on purpose at first. Sorry for being kinda rude there.
I would definitely prefer that matches involve more than 6 hooks before getting to the two people left portion of things, and I feel like a decent chunk of matches do. I just don't think it's fair to the matches where more hooks than that happen before reaching that point if something were to be implemented just because of six hook matches. And I would definitely consider escaping through hatch to be a valid win condition for survivors. I don't think it should be a freebie by any means though. Hatch is like, "ok, everything else fell apart, but I'm giving you one last chance here". You should still have to put in some effort to be able to utilize that one last chance. And if a survivor can evade the killer for as long as it takes a person to bleed out and then find hatch and escape through it, yeah, I would still consider that a valid win for them.
0 -
People want to delete suiciding on hook and yet they also want to add another way to
Duality of man
0 -
"They'res only 2 survivors left and one of them are slugged for the 4k."
No. If you don't like this remove hatch.
"Its honestly not fun being slugged for the 4k because really, it's just the Killer being greedy."
You mean greedy like the survivor that's just hiding for hatch and waiting for the other guy to die?
"Theres no reason to do so other than BP and bragging rights, youve already won if you hook the survivor and get a 3k"
You should feel just as strongly then about the 4th guy hiding. The killer already won, so he should just come out and give himself to the killer to move the game on faster. Why is it the killers fault for the game dragging out when BOTH sides have the option to end it whenever they want. That's a double standard.
The source of the problem is not the killer dragging the game out, it's why the game's getting drug out, which is hatch. If hatch didn't exist the games would end faster, so how about we remove that because then they wouldn't slug anymore at end game? Yeah no one wants that because the killers not entitled to the last kill but the survivor is definitely entitled to their escape. Totally makes sense.
0 -
Because the timing is the issue, not the suiciding.
First, second, or probably third person hooked shouldn't have the option to suicide outside deliverance. It ruins the game outside very rare slippery meat/luck builds.
Suiciding later though and its probably just because the game is over. No one should want a system that keeps people in the game once its no longer competitive. Once the game is decided mechanics that speed up the end of the game should be encouraged.
Yeah no one wants that because the killers not entitled to the last kill but the survivor is definitely entitled to their escape. Totally makes sense.No one wants the survivor to get a free escape, but you need a mechanic that keeps the game interesting. Otherwise the game should just end outright when it gets to two survivors and there are still gens left to be done (which BHVR wouldn't do for good reasons because it would be a very boring way to end a horror game).
0
