Survivors got nothing this chapter, what Equal Attention Buff would you like to see?
Comments
-
But those aren't part of PT. What you're saying is that you have a problem with the base game. They were right in arguing that PT only saves survivors (currently) 5.5 seconds.
... do you realize that for PT to work you need 2 or more survivors in one gen, right? So it add more saved time to the base time saved? And that the argument was that it "only" saved 7 seconds (as we were talking about old PT) and that's why it supposedly wasn't that busted (like even the 5.5 seconds it saves now wasn't that much)?
It doesn't matter that there are those other 37 seconds because they are not part of PT. PT does not save you 43 seconds, it saves you 6.
So, a perk that works by percentage of the base regression doesn't have anything to do with that base regression, specially one that only work from that specific base regression and upward? Fascinating...
That is very much a you problem.
Yeah, that's why I started it with "In my experience".
Absolutely not, because the killer cannot pressure all gens at the same time. I'd rather have both A and B progressing at 100% speed than only have A progress at 170% speed with the risk that if the killer drops by, they undo all the work. Additionally, if I am on a separate gen and I get interrupted by the killer, I can use resources in the immediate vicinity without having to worry about being required to lure the killer away from the gen.
That's very much a you problem...
You're not going to get more of a co-op penalty than there already is. At this point, you are just looking for free wins.
Nice strawman, but dare to explain me how pointing out that fact is me wanting "free wins"? Specially when gen times being too fast has being a problem since I started playing the game. Also, if taking away 37 seconds of a gen by having just another survivor in it is a "co-op penalty", I don't want to see what a co-op reward is by your logic...
0 -
... do you realize that for PT to work you need 2 or more survivors in one gen, right? So it add more saved time to the base time saved? And that the argument was that it "only" saved 7 seconds (as we were talking about old PT) and that's why it supposedly wasn't that busted (like even the 5.5 seconds it saves now wasn't that much)?
And it's still not PT saving any more than 7/5.5 seconds on a gen.
So, a perk that works by percentage of the base regression doesn't have anything to do with that base regression, specially one that only work from that specific base regression and upward? Fascinating...
I mean, no more interesting than claiming that PT is responsible for a feature that works when PT is not in the game.
Nice strawman, but dare to explain me how pointing out that fact is me wanting "free wins"?
You already do that yourself. Here, let me show you:
Also, if taking away 37 seconds of a gen by having just another survivor in it is a "co-op penalty", I don't want to see what a co-op reward is by your logic...
If you fail to understand that 2 survivors taking 37 seconds fewer on a 90 second gen is a co-op penalty, then that is because you believe that that 37 seconds should be zero.
This is SO FAR removed from a balanced perspective that the only conclusion is that you just want the game to be rigged extremely viciously in your favour.
I mean, killers already have the higher winrate, and you want to argue from the position that any additional survivor working on the same gen should not reduce the gen time at all. Are you a Skull Merchant main, by any chance?
Specially when gen times being too fast had being a problem since I started playing the game
Oh, you must not've been playing for very long then.
5 -
And it's still not PT saving any more than 7/5.5 seconds on a gen.
Technically the truth, doesn't change the fact that the problem with it is not how much it takes away by itself, but that it takes away it on top of the time the base progression takes.
I mean, no more interesting than claiming that PT is responsible for a feature that works when PT is not in the game.
Read above.
You already do that yourself. Here, let me show you: [...] If you fail to understand that 2 survivors taking 37 seconds fewer on a 90 second gen is a co-op penalty, then that is because you believe that that 37 seconds should be zero.
My Entity, dude! From a strawman to a even bigger strawman with a lot more fallacies after.
But I tell you what, if you are able to explain to me where I said that two survivors repairing one gen should take the same time than if they were only one, I would try to answer any of that *word I can't write as is not allowed in the forum*.
Oh, you must not've been playing for very long then.
More than enough to see gen times has being a problem since a long time now.
1 -
oh yeah mft made the game so much fun. especially for m1 killers that have to play on a handful of abominations for maps that survivors decide to bring. do you people mean survivor fun when you say game isn't fun anymore?
0 -
It's always interesting to me, that killers seem to understand the time-per-survivor thing with healing, but not always understand it with gens. As in, 2 survivors being required to heal one health state is clearly 32 survivor-seconds of time, and it was the main argument for nerfing circle (because ~21.3 seconds healing yourself is clearly less than 32 if you completely ignore setup and travel time).
But when it comes to gens, there's a (sometimes willful) misunderstanding of the same idea. It takes 2 survivors ~53 seconds to do one gen entirely (without prove), which is 106 survivor seconds, where they could split up and do 2 entire gens simultaneously in 90 seconds. There's a reason the 'efficient teams' always split up on gens until the last one.
This whole 'willful misunderstanding' was the entire basis of the prove thyself nerf, which has actually backfired tremendously now that people aren't wasting time grouping up to maximize BP.
8 -
To be fair,. survivors do the same thing when they say gens were increased by "50 seconds" and not "20-50"
Everyone always just focuses on what they think will help their argument hardest.
0 -
Technically the truth, doesn't change the fact that the problem with it is not how much it takes away by itself, but that it takes away it on top of the time the base progression takes.
Again, that means your problem is with the base progression, not PT.
But I tell you what, if you are able to explain to me where I said that two survivors repairing one gen should take the same time than if they were only one, I would try to answer any of that *word I can't write as is not allowed in the forum*.
You really want to try and claim that you were arguing from any other position? Saying it's not a co-op penalty to take away 37 seconds of a gen?
37 seconds compared to what, Bat?
5 -
disclaimer: i don't defend prove nerf, especially the bp part. i used it all the time.
BUT. it was not useless, there are times you kinda have to do gens with multiple people and perk was saving the day in these situations like when 3 or 4 survivors spawn together and there is a gen right there. it was best to all sit on that gen instead of spreading and looking for new gens and killer loses that gen in the blink of an eye. or like you said doubling or tripling the last gen with prove. it was not weak or useless at all, there are times multiple people sitting on a gen is the most optimal choice.
0 -
I never said it was useless, but it's almost always better for survivors to separate and do gens instead of grouping up for them. That's how 'comp' and 'efficient' DbD is played at the highest level.
The only time survivors tend to group up *and* be efficient is for the last gen, and even then it can *still* sometimes be better to split up if the killer is trying to force a 3 gen, for example. (See the team eternal vs chess merchant game).
Nerfing prove only made it more appealing for the average survivor to split up and play efficiently, since the BP bonus for prove was deleted and was an actual incentive to play sub optimally.
5 -
While I'm sure this has probably occured at least once, I've only ever really heard it said as '90 second gens' or 'they added 10 seconds to every gen in 6.1.0', which is objectively true with how the base game is discussed.
4 -
Again, that means your problem is with the base progression, not PT.
It means what I said. But you do you, dude. We both know your tendency to understand what you want and not what the other said. That, and repeat yourself.
You really want to try and claim that you were arguing from any other position? Saying it's not a co-op penalty to take away 37 seconds of a gen?
You didn't justified your other fallacies and start with another one? You still have to explain where I said that two survivors should save 0 seconds in generator time.
Anyway, GG.
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
It is true with how you described it there, but it has been complained as 50 extra seconds plenty of times.
Both sides are often guilty of loading things in their favor.
0 -
I would like to see renewal get buffed to work automatically after being rescued from a hook without requiring to heal another survivor. that would be my wish.
i think he is complaining that prove thyself exaggerates base progressions because it encourages people to be glued on generators. that is why i said it was really strong perk that people underrated.
1 -
Exactly, grouping up is an underrated Killer tool. I'm a mad enough lad to think we should reverse gen efficiency numbers, and basekit CoB intel on coop skillchecks. I would have solo gens go at 85% efficiency, and co-op gens (regardless of the number of Survs) go at 100%. Once someone dies, the efficiency penalty would be removed, but the CoB intel for co-op gens would remain.
They may have gotten one gen, but they lost 15% efficiency in doing so. That is a macro time loss, not a time save. Those 2 Survs could duo 2 gens (teleporting to gens) in ~106s, or solo them in 90s. That basically means only the final gen is an actual real-time save.
Is there any chance we could have a 5th tab up top to be 'most recent news' so it would link the most recent patch notes and/or dev update? I legit have only realized after 2 years that that specific link combo is how to find the patch notes, and have had to struggle with sifting through Google giving garbage spam sites not copying all the notes correctly.
3 -
-
Luv that it’s Mean Girls, tho😄
1 -
37 seconds, compared to what, Bat?
You always just play stupid the second you realise you're wrong, just so you don't have to own up to it.
2 -
Yes, again, I heard it all, I understand the logic behind it and I already said that mathematically speaking and in terms of efficiency, spreading progression is the way to go. What you people don't seem to understand is that in your average, everyday match, there are more things happening than just doing gens, specially if you don't have a coordinated full SWF. So, nothing guarantees that those "53 extra seconds" (BTW, in reality are "charges", not seconds, but anyway) would be spent in another generator. If that other survivor is found, downed and hooked before the first gen is done, now those "53 charges" are gone, the killer is free to go to that gen that was progressed by one survivor and disrupt him or regress it with a perk, when if the two did that gen by this time it would be finished and secured.
In a real case, you have to count walk times, healing times, countermeasures time, chase time as a survivor being chased is unable to put any charges or time in doing any of the other things, and of course regression. That's why I said that funnily enough, in this case that you have to take in count all those other factors you guys are committed to stay by just the raw, pure numbers. When the argument is about the math and all those things are irrelevant, then you guys start bringing them to the table.
But again, I never claimed that this is a fact that is true in every single case and situation, in fact what I said is that it was highly debatable that spreading progression is always the best option and I pointed out why.
Either way, if it is not a time save, what is the problem with those 37 seconds being reduced? Because everybody says the same, that is better to spread out and by grouping there is not time saved but lost, but everybody is adamant for BHVR to not make the two survivor base progress penalty higher.
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
That's precious coming from you.
You still have to justify your fallacies! I don't see you pointing out where I said what you said I said.
But I tell you what, if you own up the fact that you only argumented with fallacies, and explain to me the reason for even making that question, what has to do with anything and how it is any proof that I'm wrong, I would try answer to it.
The keyword being "try", because it doesn't even make sense. "37 seconds compared to what?"... what?
0 -
If you thought about the question, you'd know, but you stop thinking about things the moment it looks like you might be wrong.
3 -
If the situation requires it and you're okay with that, then yes.. But if you're not a competitive player, then you shouldn't tunnel even if it causes you to end up with a few less hooks in the end. What you do care about is having fun, ain't that right?
Killers do tunnel since the very beginning even nowadays, at least in mid-high MMR, and especially while facing solo queue where the saviors do hide and let the injured moaning survivor be found once again.. Killers running four slow downs instead of detection perks, and then excusing their lack of self-awareness when it comes to the loadout selection that they couldn't have found any other survivor besides the recently unhooked one.
The killers who don't tunnel do usually lose the match in my experiences, or they make a comeback if the survivors mess up a little or the killer has a way to injure survivors with ease.
0 -
Of course, of course...
0 -
It still takes 90 charges to pop the gen, so I'm not sure why you are saying it would be 53 charges. It takes 2 Survivors ~53s working at .85 charges/second each, instead of 1 charge/second each solo'd, or 3 Survivors ~43s working at .7 charges/second each, or 4 Survivors ~41s working at .55 charges/second each. Each case still requires 90 charges to pop the gen, but varied times to accomplish that same 90 charges.
In real cases it helps the efficiency argument for split gens. That's why many people have been ignoring them to give your case the most benefit possible. If a Killer intercepts a solo gen, 1 Survivor is disrupted. If a Killer intercepts a duo gen, 2 Survivors are disrupted, and they don't get to simply teleport to another gen and keep it progressing, nor do they get to continue to progress the gen they were just on unless they risk giving the Killer a free hit. In addition, take the common jungle gym/shack gen for example. If 2 people are on the gen, the Killer not only gets to pick which Survivor to chase (maybe the unhooked PR Surv, or the death hook for a kill Surv), they also get to pick the Window Survivor or the Pallet Survivor to chase, which could result in an early hit with Bamboozle for the window or pallet break for the Pallet Surv. The Killer is massively advantaged in the 'real example', yet those parts you don't count in it. Those things are far more relevant, but we typically shorter this massive paragraph to "it helps Killer to have Survivors grouped", because we assume people have the capacity to recognize the obvious (although unstated).
'... everyone is adamant for BHVR to not make the two survivor base progress penalty higher.' - Yes, as I said in the first reply in my post (not to you), they should remove the penalty for grouping, and add a penalty for soloing. They should also basekit CoB intel when gens are co-oped, that way Killers can know which gens are being done by multiple Survivors, making it more likely multiple Survivors will interact with the Killer. More Killer/Survivor interaction is better in my eyes, and those changes would facilitate that.
4 -
My brother in the entity... you are the ones talking about two survivors on one gen being 106 "seconds"!
If two survivors in one gen are "53 seconds * 2 = 106 seconds (charges)", two survivors in two gens would do 53 charges on those two gens! That's the amount of charges not being pumped to another gen for having two survivors on the same gen, and those would be the charges "lost" if that other survivor didn't get to another gen as in the example I gave. Am I missing something here?
For the rest of the post, you are not wrong, but we have to remember that the killer technically can only chase one survivor, so any other survivor in that gen only have to wait for the killer to pick a survivor to commit to (and of course, not giving a free hit to the killer) and the moment the killer turn his back keep repairing the gen. In fact, even if the killer hit you but decides to chase another survivor, you can still stick around and keep doing that gen. So, I don't agree with your "nor do they get to continue to progress the gen they were just on" statement. Survivors had done this to me, and I had done this as survivor, it is not an uncommon practice (and one of the main reasons for using "Nowhere to hide") and I even would say that knowing when you should stay by the gen or getting the hell out of there as soon as possible in that situation is having a good game sense.
About your proposal, I like it except the part where doesn't matter how many survivors are in one gen. I think it should go from 85% to 150% with 4 survivors or something like that, as if you manage to get that much survivors on one gen you should get something from it. The only problem with this is that SWF would get an upper hand, as they could communicate in which gens people are while SoloQ should use SA or go from gen to gen finding that one survivor that is already in one, or lose time doing the gen solo. So, I don't really see it.
0 -
Sprint Burst & Lithe aren't stupidly OP against most killers.
MFT had an infinite speed boost. It looked wrong on paper and was wrong on practice. (I trust I don't need to enumerate all the reasons it was wrong. They have been repeated ad nauseam.) That perk had to change. I'm only surprised they took so much time to do it when they nerfed the Xenomorph in a couple of weeks.
1 -
If two survivors in one gen are "53 seconds * 2 = 106 seconds (charges)", two survivors in two gens would do 53 charges on those two gens! That's the amount of charges not being pumped to another gen for having two survivors on the same gen, and those would be the charges "lost" if that other survivor didn't get to another gen as in the example I gave. Am I missing something here?
You're using seconds and charges interchangeably, and they're not.
Two survivors on one gen isn't 53 seconds x 2 = 106 charges, it's 53 seconds x 1.7 = 90 charges, because of the co-op penalty.
Whereas two survivors working on separate gens is 53 seconds x 2 = 106 charges.
That's 16 charges lost. 8 seconds of solo gen time for both survivors.
3 -
You still here? And you still doesn't understand what you read?
First, told me where I interchanged those terms outside of referring to "1 survivor - 1 gen" scenario where basically are the same, as the base progression for a single survivor is 1 c/s.
Second, if instead of doing a gen with another survivor, you try to find another gen and get chased instead, the number of charges lost and not pumped in another gen are only 53 charges, as you would just only had spent 53 seconds doing the co-op gen, not 90. That was the example I gave in my other post, arguing precisely that nothing guarantees that those 53 extra charges you would get from splitting progression would by pumped on another gen.
To finish:
Whereas two survivors working on separate gens is 53 seconds x 2 = 106 charges.
Yeah... that's what I was talking about, hence the "(charges)" after the "106 seconds" as that is how everybody wrongly refer to it even in this post and I myself said that earlier, so I made clear that those are 106 "charges", not "seconds" as someone said:
It takes 2 survivors ~53 seconds to do one gen entirely (without prove), which is 106 survivor seconds
So, your argument with all this is what, exactly? Or are you just cherry picking every little thing you believe I'm wrong about at this point?
0 -
The point is no matter how you slice it, it is more efficient for survivors to complete gens separately. Prove Thyself does not make completing gens faster. You can ignore the math because that’s really all you need to know. The joke is on you, hon.
6 -
But what you are doing is precisely stick by the math while ignoring everything else. By the numbers, it is more efficient for survivors to complete gens separately as they would be pumping more charges per seconds on the gens. Nobody is saying the contrary.
But again, in a match, you would not only be doing gens uninterrupted, there are other things happening, and taking in count those things, sometimes, it is better to have a gen done and secured than just trying to do them taking in count the "charges per second efficiency" and giving the killer more time to do his thing, or having less to do yours. And that's about it.
And the point of the argument never was if PT does make total gen times lower, but if it was a busted perk or not, and it was (still is) for the reasons already mentioned, including making the progression penalty be only -0.045 c/s instead of -0.3 c/s, so two people did a gen in 46 seconds (now in 48, so yeah, it is still busted). And even if they make the two survivors progression penalty higher, it would still be a pretty damn good perk even if not as busted as now (as there won't be 37 shaved off from just base progression and being a percentage of it the perk would shave less time itself).
0 -
And yet, I'm 100% certain that within days of this change going live the forums will call for nerfs to something else.
It might not be sprint burst or lithe, but that was the trend before MfT, and I fully expect it to be the go-to after the MfT nerf lands.
If not those two specifically, it'll absolutely be whatever killers decide is 'the next big thing' that's losing them games, and chase perks are usually high on the list. It's been consistently easier to get perks nerfed by complaining incessantly than for players to actually improve their own gameplay, specifically when it comes to improving skill in chase over the past year or so.
3 -
First, told me where I interchanged those terms
Right here:
If two survivors in one gen are "53 seconds * 2 = 106 seconds (charges)"
Two survivors on one gen put in an effective 106 seconds of survivor time, but NOT 106 charges. So that '(charges)' is incorrect.
Second, if instead of doing a gen with another survivor, you try to find another gen and get chased instead
That's not the comparison though. This is a problem you have with how you approach this. You don't analyse your own preferred scenario.
This is currently the comparison you're thinking of:
2 survivors on one gen. Timer starts the second they start working. The killer does not interfere. They are done in 53 seconds.
vs.
2 survivors start at the same gen, but one has to first move to another gen, and the killer is interfering, and they do some healing along the way, so in 90 seconds, they've done one gen and nothing else.
You add all these extra details to the split-up scenario which you omit from the group-up scenario. Yes, the killer can intercept the other survivor on the other gen. They can also intercept the pair of them while they're working on the same gen and put BOTH out of commission for a while. Yes, if they both start at the same gen, one survivor will have to spend time moving to another gen to get it fixed. But if the grouped-up survivors want to do a second gen after their first is done, they have to spend that same time moving to it. (Only now it's two survivors moving, instead of one)
Let me try and show you what happens if your 'You have to move' argument was applied equally across the scenarios.
Team 1 splits up on Gen A and Gen B. Gen A is done in 90 seconds. The other survivor spent 8 seconds to move to Gen B and get started on it. So Gen A and Gen B are done in a total of 98 seconds. (With the survivor on Gen A having 8 seconds left to spare)
Team 2 groups up on Gen A and Gen B. Gen A is done in 53 seconds, then they spend 8 seconds moving to Gen B, and do that in 53 seconds as well. So Gen A and Gen B are done in a total of 114 seconds.
You can't toss up the 'survivors lose time by moving to another gen' argument and then NOT apply the same thing to your own preferred scenario.
2 -
Right here [...] Two survivors on one gen put in an effective 106 seconds of survivor time, but NOT 106 charges. So that '(charges)' is incorrect.
... why it not surprises me that you don't get that when talking about single survivors on one gen, a second is equal to a charge. So, what people is saying is that two survivors on one gen could have being 106 charges in separated gens, or it would not make any friking sense as the effective time would still be 53 seconds.
Yes, the killer can intercept the other survivor on the other gen. They can also intercept the pair of them while they're working on the same gen and put BOTH out of commission for a while.
Except I already addressed that specific "scenario" you are saying in another post:
But as always, you do you.
But if the grouped-up survivors want to do a second gen after their first is done, they have to spend that same time moving to it. (Only now it's two survivors moving, instead of one)
... and? What has that to do with anything? Because if you are comparing it directly to my example, then, they would be both moving after finishing a gen, which is now secured and with no way of getting regressed. They could also split and go to different gens, or to heal, or do a save, or whatever as they both are free now to do what they have to do.
So, I don't see what your point is.
Let me try and show you what happens if your 'You have to move' argument was applied equally across the scenarios.
Aham... so, from "There is a lot of things happening in a match, like moving, getting chased, having to do specific killer things, etc." you just have picked the moving one and now my argument only was "You have to move"? Right.
You can't toss up the 'survivors lose time by moving to another gen' argument and then NOT apply the same thing to your own preferred scenario.
Maybe it is because the point never was "lose time by moving to another gen", but "There are more things happening in a match than making gens, so not always is better to follow the most efficient charges per seconds route" with an example of how those 53 charges that would have being done by "Survivor B" in another gen instead of doing the gen with "Survivor A" are not guaranteed, as again, a match don't only consist of doing gens uninterrupted and the killer could basically chase and down him before he gets to another gen, maybe even find and disrupt Survivor A before he can finish the gen, while if he stayed with Survivor A maybe by the time the killer would found them that gen would already be finished and secured.
That has being my point since this conversation started, that there is more things happening in a match that makes splitting up not always the best option, and I provided an example in response to something someone else said. That's it.
But again, it doesn't surprises me at all that you either didn't get, or decide to ignore what I really said.
0 -
why it not surprises me that you don't get that when talking about single survivors on one gen
To quote: "TWO survivors in ONE gen"
So, I can't give an example to argue my point
You can. But the problem is that your example of two survivors on one gen is literally only doing one gen that's right next to them with no distractions and no killer interference.
Which you then compare to two survivors on separate gens that aren't near them, with an extra heal tossed in, and the killer chasing one of them off.
That is not a fair comparison. You pull in all these extra details about how a 'real match' works, but you completely omit those from the group-up scenario to try and pass it off as better.
Except I already addressed that specific "scenario" you are saying in another post:
But you're not thinking about it, because you just take the scenario, play out the best-case for the killer and then handwave it.
In your scenario, the killer is basically completely oblivious to the presence of the second survivor and doesn't play into it at all. They don't defend the gen, they don't try and mindgame, they just come in, chase one survivor away, and that's it. But what if the killer doesn't do that? What if they instead stick around, chase one survivor off a short ways, then double back to interrupt the second survivor? Now you've got two survivors not working on a gen, and the gen they had been working on is starting to regress at a comparatively higher speed. (.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s, as opposed to .25 c/s vs 2 c/s)
And even without all of that, you still get a couple of seconds where the total gen repair speed between the two survivors is literally 0 c/s, which is not the case with a split-push, which just drops to 1. The same as what happens to the grouped up team in your example.
... and? What has that to do with anything? Because if you are comparing it directly to my example, then, they would be both moving after finishing a gen, which is now secured and with no way of getting regressed. They could also split and go to different gens, or to heal, or do a save, or whatever as they both are free now to do what they have to do.
So, I don't see what your point is.
The point is that when comparing apples to apples instead of to Toyotas, splitting up is more efficient.
Aham... so, from "There is a lot of things happening in a match, like moving, getting chased, having to do specific killer things, etc." you just have picked the moving one and now my argument only was "You have to move"? Right.
Maybe it is because the point never was "lose time by moving to another gen", but "There are more things happening in a match than making gens, so not always is better to follow the most efficient charges per seconds route" with an example of how those 53 charges that would have being done by "Survivor B" in another gen instead of doing the gen with "Survivor A" are not guaranteed
And what I am pointing out to you with the example given is that no matter what you come up with as another thing that can interfere with a split-push team, by necessity, ALSO applies to the group-up team.
'What if the killer finds the other survivor?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
'What if they heal instead?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
'What about the time it takes to move to the next generator?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
Literally the only points where it is more advantageous to group up, is if there's only one gen left to do, or you're trying to break a 3-gen. In all other scenarios, it's more efficient to split up because you make progress faster and it's harder for the killer to pressure.
2 -
To quote: "TWO survivors in ONE gen"
But when talking about the lost result in those two survivors in one gen, we then talk about those two survivors in two separate gens. So hard it is to understand?
You can. But the problem is that your example of two survivors on one gen is literally only doing one gen that's right next to them with no distractions and no killer interference.
Which you then compare to two survivors on separate gens that aren't near them, with an extra heal tossed in, and the killer chasing one of them off.
That is not a fair comparison. You pull in all these extra details about how a 'real match' works, but you completely omit those from the group-up scenario to try and pass it off as better.
What? Have you even read what I said?
It is an example where the survivor would be found if it goes to look from another gen, something that could perfectly happen in a real match. Of course, the contrary is also true, there would be matches were that survivor would go to start repairing another gen and there would be no problem, or other were the two would stay and get found on the same gen.
Who the hell is saying that I pretend to say grouping is better with that example, when the example wasn't even to argue that point? Seriously dude, stop with the strawmans and putting words in my mouth already.
But you're not thinking about it, because you just take the scenario, play out the best-case for the killer and then handwave it. In your scenario, the killer is basically completely oblivious to the presence of the second survivor and doesn't play into it at all.
You mean like this?:
He came back again later, but I stayed close again, killer started chasing another survivor again, and we finished the gen as Ada also came back later. As I said, this is not an uncommon occurrence and had done it and had it done to me in a daily basis.
They don't defend the gen, they don't try and mindgame, they just come in, chase one survivor away, and that's it. But what if the killer doesn't do that? What if they instead stick around, chase one survivor off a short ways, then double back to interrupt the second survivor?
Well, obviously, you don't play killer that much, as not many killer would do that for the simple reason that you would be losing time in starting a chase with two targets at the same time and protecting a gen regressing 4 times slower than a survivor can repair it, while the other survivors are free to do whatever they want. But yeah, it can happen, and if it happens, then the killer would chase the survivor that stayed while the first one can do whatever they want, including get back to that gen.
Also, you are talking like I'm saying all this are facts written in stone or something, while the ones talking like "Spreading is always the best option" is some universal rule of physics are you. What I said is that in my experience in a every day match there are instances where is better to secure a gen than giving the killer the opportunity to mess up the regression of two. I never said one option is always better than the other in every single situation, that's what you is saying and what you are pretending that I said.
[...] and the gen they had been working on is starting to regress at a comparatively higher speed. (.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s, as opposed to .25 c/s vs 2 c/s)
Talking about bad comparisons and not analyzing your example!
First, in your example, only one gen would be regressing, so you can't compare it with the charges of two survivors in two individual gens. In any case, it would be -0.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s as opposed to -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s as only one survivor would have being repairing that gen. But that didn't fit your narrative, I guess.
Second, you know that for that same reason two survivors on one gen reduces the effectiveness of regression, right? First by reducing the time lost (if 30 charges are lost, and those charges where done in 17.65 seconds at 1.7 c/s, then only 17.65 seconds of work would be lost instead of 30) and second by allowing to recover that charges faster (two survivors would recover those 30 charges in only 17.65 seconds instead of the 30 seconds it would take to only one survivor).
But of course you know, as I already said it in another post above! You just chose to ignore that fact.
The point is that when comparing apples to apples instead of to Toyotas, splitting up is more efficient.
Where have someone compared anything to anything? I just provided an example of how those 53 charges that would have being pumped in another gen can be denied. I never compared that situation to any other. I never said it is the only possible outcome of that scenario in a real match where everything is possible. Nothing. Is all in your head and your fallacies, dude.
And what does the definition of example have to do with you reducing my real point (There are a lot of things happening in a match that you have to take into account apart from just raw gen repair) to "You have to move"? Seriously, how do you even get to that point of reasoning? What logic process did you follow to even start to think it was a valid argument?
And what I am pointing out to you with the example given is that no matter what you come up with as another thing that can interfere with a split-push team, by necessity, ALSO applies to the group-up team.
...and? Who in the entity's name have said the contrary?
'What if the killer finds the other survivor?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
...and?
'What if they heal instead?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
Where had I mention healing in my example? Anyway... and?
'What about the time it takes to move to the next generator?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
Again: And??? What have anything of that to do with what I'm saying and how it contradicts it? Seriously dude, start understanding what the real points of people are and stop distorting them! I never said that any of that doesn't happens when grouping up! I never said that grouping up is always better than splitting up! I never said any of that!
And as you seems to believe I said it, please point it to me where I supposedly said it, specially when I had said "splitting up is the most effective way mathematically speaking" since the beginning.
Literally the only points where it is more advantageous to group up, is if there's only one gen left to do, or you're trying to break a 3-gen.
See how it is you who says one thing is better than the other always?
In all other scenarios, it's more efficient to split up because you make progress faster and it's harder for the killer to pressure.
False, because of the reasons that I already said. There is times where securing a gen faster is better than giving the killer more time to mess up with it. But we both know how you roll, so as always, you do you.
0 -
But when talking about the lost result in those two survivors in one gen, we then talk about those two survivors in two separate gens. So hard it is to understand?
That still doesn't make two survivors on one gen produce 106 -charges- in 53 seconds!
It is an example where the survivor would be found if it goes to look from another gen, something that could perfectly happen in a real match.
I am not arguing that it doesn't happen.
I am arguing that it happens to grouped up teams as well.
Who the hell is saying that I pretend to say grouping is better with that example, when the example wasn't even to argue that point?
You: Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
Everyone else: Splitting up is more efficient.
You: But the killer could find one of the survivors!
Why else did you bring it up if not to involve it in the comparison of efficiency?
He came back again later, but I stayed close again, killer started chasing another survivor again, and we finished the gen as Ada also came back later. As I said, this is not an uncommon occurrence and had done it and had it done to me in a daily basis.
Again, I am not saying it is not a possibility.
Well, obviously, you don't play killer that much, as not many killer would do that
Killers doing this is the very reason Skull Merchant got her last rework. It's still a viable strategy on certain killers overall. 3-genning is still a big deal.
for the simple reason that you would be losing time in starting a chase with two targets at the same time and protecting a gen regressing 4 times slower than a survivor can repair it, while the other survivors are free to do whatever they want
Which is an argument in favour of splitting up, not grouping up.
Also, you are talking like I'm saying all this are facts written in stone or something, while the ones talking like "Spreading is always the best option" is some universal rule of physics are you.
No, my guy, YOU started this by trying to pass off co-opping on a gen as being 'too efficient'. You're getting corrected on that.
First, in your example, only one gen would be regressing, so you can't compare it with the charges of two survivors in two individual gens. In any case, it would be -0.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s as opposed to -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s as only one survivor would have being repairing that gen. But that didn't fit your narrative, I guess.
No, it's not .25 c/s vs 1 c/s, because there's a second survivor working on a second gen, so that's a total of 2 c/s being done, not 1.
Unless you want to make it a comparison between individual survivors, in which case it's .25 c/s vs. .85 c/s as opposed to .25 c/s vs. 1 c/s. The regression is still comparatively higher.
Second, you know that for that same reason two survivors on one gen reduces the effectiveness of regression, right? First by reducing the time lost (if 30 charges are lost, and those charges where done in 17.65 seconds at 1.7 c/s, then only 17.65 seconds of work would be lost instead of 30) and second by allowing to recover that charges faster (two survivors would recover those 30 charges in only 17.65 seconds instead of the 30 seconds it would take to only one survivor).
But it's 17.65 seconds for TWO survivors, instead of one, so that's a total of 35.3 seconds of survivor time.
Also, yeah, it takes two survivors 17.65 seconds to clear that 30 charge backlog up while it takes a single survivor 30 seconds. However, a single survivor taking 30 seconds frees up the other survivor to spend those 30 seconds doing something else to help the team.
Like putting another 30 charges into a different gen.
Where have someone compared anything to anything?
You did. This whole discussion is comparing splitting up to grouping up.
I just provided an example of how those 53 charges that would have being pumped in another gen can be denied.
As can the 90 charges being dropped into a single gen. More easily, too.
And what does the definition of example have to do with you reducing my real point
It's almost like I took one of the components you are talking about and made it an
of why it is not relevant to the comparative efficiency of splitting up vs. grouping up.
Again: And??? What have anything of that to do all of that with what I'm saying and how it contradicts it? Seriously dude, start understanding what the real points of people are and stop distorting them! I never said that any of that doesn't happens when grouping up! I never said that grouping up is always better than splitting up! I never said any of that!
You need to watch your arguments!
If someone tells you that splitting up is more efficient and you respond to that with 'But the other survivor can get interrupted by the killer', that means you are fielding that as a counter-argument.
Maybe YOU do not understand that that is what you are saying, but it IS what you are saying.
Stop playing this motte-and-bailey game.
And as you seems to believe I said it, please point it to me where I supposedly said it, specially when I had said "splitting up is the most effective way mathematically speaking" since the beginning.
And it is specifically in the argumentation of its practice, not the mathematical theory (Though you have issues there, too), that you are having trouble, because this is where you draw up all these supposed drawbacks to splitting up, without realising that they also apply to grouping up, often more strongly so, too.
1 -
That still doesn't make two survivors on one gen produce 106 -charges- in 53 seconds!
But... two survivors on two gens does! And when talking about those "106 seconds" people refer precisely that those two survivor could have done 106 charges in two gens, but wrongfully call them seconds and...
You know what? Let's just say it is too hard for you to understand it.
I am not arguing that it doesn't happen.
I am arguing that it happens to grouped up teams as well.
And who have said the contrary?
You: Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
Where I said that. Come on, point it out exactly where I said it.
Everyone else: Splitting up is more efficient.
You: But the killer could find one of the survivors!
... I'm starting to believe that you live between parallel universes or something, because that never happened in this reality.
That's not arguing with fallacies anymore, at this point is literally lying.
Again, I am not saying it is not a possibility.
But you were literally saying it was a "handwaved best-case scenario" where in reality is a common occurrence in a daily match, and again, one of the main reasons for using Nowhere to hide. So common that I recorded that before you even made that claim.
So, I wasn't even arguing that you said it is not a possibility? But that you said it like I was fabricating an utopian scenario where the killer is oblivious of the second survivor like it can't really happen that often when it does, as like I said, the killer can only chase one survivor?...
Killers doing this is the very reason Skull Merchant got her last rework. It's still a viable strategy on certain killers overall. 3-genning is still a big deal.
Who is talking about 3genning and what the SM rework have to do with anything discussed? Back to the fallacies, again.
Which is an argument in favour of splitting up, not grouping up.
First, who said it wasn't when that wasn't even the point being made? Second, how is the killer not being able to stop a gen progressing if a second survivor stay by it unless they lose time and let the others free of pressure an argument for that?
No, my guy, YOU started this by trying to pass off co-opping on a gen as being 'too efficient'. You're getting corrected on that.
Again, where? Point exactly where I said that and how I had being corrected, when I'm the first one that said that in efficiency terms splitting up is the way to go. That, or stop with the strawmans already.
Come on, make a claim based on reality and not your distorted logic for once. You can do it, I believe in you.
No, it's not .25 c/s vs 1 c/s, because there's a second survivor working on a second gen, so that's a total of 2 c/s being done, not 1.
But only one gen is regressing, if two gens are regressing that would be -0.50 c/s total, and if they are regressing then no charges are being pumped in any gen. It was already obvious that you don't use any logic behind your "arguments", but to that point, dude? Really?
But it's 17.65 seconds for TWO survivors, instead of one, so that's a total of 35.3 seconds of survivor time.
Also, yeah, it takes two survivors 17.65 seconds to clear that 30 charge backlog up while it takes a single survivor 30 seconds. However, a single survivor taking 30 seconds frees up the other survivor to spend those 30 seconds doing something else to help the team.
Like putting another 30 charges into a different gen.
Yeah, and also give the killer another 30 seconds instead of just 17.65 to do whatever he need to do to catch you all.
Also, and again, those aren't seconds, those are charges, so that other survivor would be able to put 17.65 charges in another gen at the same time, not 30, and again, nothing guarantees that he would be able to do so. That's my point.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that grouping up reduces the effects of regression.
You did. This whole discussion is comparing splitting up to grouping up.
You referred to my example, where according to you I was comparing "apples with Toyotas". Now, as you can't point out where I compared anything there, you change the goalpost to the whole discussion (wrongfully, as I never compared both things directly). Another fallacy to add to the list.
As can the 90 charges being dropped into a single gen. More easily, too.
And when I said the contrary? Specially after just saying explicitly that it can also happen.
It's almost like I took one of the components you are talking about and made it an...
So, you are admitting that you did a sharpshooter fallacy and cherry picked my argument to make yours. Great! Another one for the list!
If someone tells you that splitting up is more efficient and you respond to that with 'But the other survivor can get interrupted by the killer', that means you are fielding that as a counter-argument.
If someone lives in your same reality yes, of course. If not, I didn't even made that point ever to begin with. But even better, that's not a real response to what you are supposedly doing a "counter-argument".
So again: Where I ever said that any of what you said in your other post never happens when grouping up? Where I said that grouping up is always better than splitting up?
Maybe YOU do not understand that that is what you are saying, but it IS what you are saying.
So, as I'm not saying what you say I'm saying, then it's me who doesn't understand what I'm saying. Seems legit.
Stop playing this motte-and-bailey game.
Stop derailing and distorting the argument, and using logical fallacies to support your "arguments".
And it is specifically in the argumentation of its practice, not the mathematical theory (Though you have issues there, too), that you are having trouble, because this is where you draw up all these supposed drawbacks to splitting up, without realising that they also apply to grouping up, often more strongly so, too.
How I have issues with the "mathematical theory"?
And what you are having trouble is that I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen, namely in the time it takes to complete a gen. That's why my real point is and ever was that in some cases, grouping up and finish a gen faster is better than splitting progression, even if you lose efficiency in doing so, as you give the killer less time to mess with that gen. I think is not that hard to understand this, either.
Yet again, that is if you are not adamant in not accepting it because your only interest is being right (or better said, proving that I'm wrong) and no matter what I say, everytime you can't respond to it you would simply distort my point, put words in my mouth that I ever said and argue with fallacies until your arguments "make sense".
But like I said, we both know that's how you do things, so do you do and when I get bored of repeating myself over and over again I would simply stop responding and that's it 🤣
0 -
But... two survivors on two gens does!
But that is not what you said.
And who have said the contrary?
You do. When you bring these factors up as argumentation for why splitting up is not more efficient. If you mention these factors in that discussion, you are either tossing in completely random commentary that is entirely unrelated to the subject matter, or you are bringing it up as an argument.
Which is it?
Where I said that. Come on, point it out exactly where I said it.
@C3Tooth said: "Prove Thyself forces survivors to group together, and grouped together gives killers advantage"
To which you replied:
And I don't know who said that having gens done and secured in less time it takes the killer to get to a gen, chase, down and hook one of the survivors (without counting reducing the time impact regression has) is an advantage for him, but it is highly debatable.
So yeah, that's you claiming that survivors grouping up is not better for the killer, which by nature of the game also means it's not worse for survivors.
... I'm starting to believe that you live between parallel universes or something, because that never happened in this reality.
To quote:
Yes, again, I heard it all, I understand the logic behind it and I already said that mathematically speaking and in terms of efficiency, spreading progression is the way to go. What you people don't seem to understand is that in your average, everyday match, there are more things happening than just doing gens, specially if you don't have a coordinated full SWF. So, nothing guarantees that those "53 extra seconds" (BTW, in reality are "charges", not seconds, but anyway) would be spent in another generator. If that other survivor is found, downed and hooked before the first gen is done, now those "53 charges" are gone
But you were literally saying it was a "handwaved best-case scenario"
Because that is the only scenario you considered in the situation and specifically because it is the one that best supports your argument. The reality is that this can also snowball for the killer because having a lot of survivors together is a recipe for the killer getting lots of pressure.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you are handwaving the scenario where it doesn't happen.
Who is talking about 3genning and what the SM rework have to do with anything discussed? Back to the fallacies, again.
Because 3genning is where grouping up is practised most and it was the core of Skull Merchant's gameplay before her rework. Did you miss the whole 'Chess Merchant' debacle?
It specifically showed that it was more than feasible for the killer to pressure a generator when it is being targeted by multiple survivors, showing that what you list as an advantage to grouping up isn't necessarily one.
But only one gen is regressing, if two gens are regressing that would be -0.50 c/s total, and if they are regressing then no charges are being pumped in any gen. It was already obvious that you don't use any logic behind your "arguments", but to that point, dude? Really?
And in practice, as killer, you are not going to get both of those gens regressing at the same time unless they are right on top of one another. And even then you're going to have a rough time. I need to remind you that in these scenarios, there may be two survivors, but there's only one killer, and he's not kicking both gens at the same time.
And in regards to regressing gens not progressing: You're basically pointing out that splitting up is better for survivors because it's harder for the killer to keep two gens regressing than one.
Yeah, and also give the killer another 30 seconds instead of just 17.65 to do whatever he need to do to catch you all.
Unless, of course, there's more than one gen left to do, in which case the grouped up team gave the killer the time it took to clear the backlog, plus however long it takes them to catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do.
Also, and again, those aren't seconds, those are charges, so that other survivor would be able to put 17.65 charges in another gen at the same time, not 30, and again, nothing guarantees that he would be able to do so. That's my point.
We're not talking about a set amount of time, we're talking about the amount of time it would take to clear a 30 charge regression.
And stop with the 'nothing guarantees they can put in the 30 seconds' because nothing guarantees you can put in the 17.65 seconds either! That's the problem! Stop saying I'm lying about you using that as an argument, and then, in the very same post, make the same argument again!
You referred to my example, where according to you I was comparing "apples with Toyotas". Now, as you can't point out where I compared anything there, you change the goalpost to the whole discussion (wrongfully, as I never compared both things directly). Another fallacy to add to the list.
Stop it.
So, you are admitting that you did a sharpshooter fallacy and cherry picked my argument to make yours. Great! Another one for the list!
Oh, I'm sorry, did you need me to go through the entire list and explain, point by point, why everything you mention applies to both splitting up and grouping up?
I thought it was everyone BUT you that didn't understand the game!
How I have issues with the "mathematical theory"?
I mean, you did say that two people on the same gen saves 37 seconds and implied that that wasn't a co-op penalty.
And what you are having trouble is that I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen
The only one where that applies is regression, but you did also mention movement, chases, and even healing for some reason.
In a real case, you have to count walk times, healing times, countermeasures time, chase time as a survivor being chased is unable to put any charges or time in doing any of the other things, and of course regression.
Along with the nebulous 'countermeasures'.
This is mentioned to contrast with the mathematical efficiency of spreading. This would be irrelevant if it does not change the balance of efficiencies. Therefor, you mentioning these factors means you are including them as reasons as to why splitting up is NOT more efficient.
However, walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time are all either neutral, or in favour of splitting up. This is what I mean with you applying these conditions to a split-up scenario, but not to a group-up scenario. And as illustrated above, even regression doesn't fully favour grouping up.
The fact that you mentioned walk time specifically illustrates this well, which is why I made it an example of your oversight. To help you understand your mistake.
But like I said, we both know that's how you do things, so do you do and when I get bored of repeating myself over and over again I would simply stop responding and that's it
For someone with a fetish for the term 'fallacy', you do sure like to court Ad Hominems a lot.
2 -
Thats actually a cool idea for No mither, especially since the devs have literally said "this perk is hard mode and is meant to suck". The MFT nerf was deserved, 3% extra speed with 0 counter play AND the endurance thing?
0 -
I had a vid here that one match of my challenge as no slowdown Myers. With the timestamp starts at 6:07
I injured Ripley and go find others, I could chase Ripley and down her, that will take sometimes, which Kate and Rebecca on the opposite side may complete a Gen, but I denied both. Ripley could go back on Gen injured when I went to Kate & Rebecca, then what? It will be a quick down for me if I go back. Kate could go back to that Gen when I changed my focus on Rebecca, then what? it will be a quick down for me if I go back. Ripley & Kate had to find each other for healing, 64sec of healing and the time it takes for both to find each other, cost 1 Gen.
Abit of game sense so I dont need any slowdown. Spread out pressure is the most powerful slowdown.
Currently I have 69% win rate with 74% kill rate.
The challenge I gave on myself made me learned that killers relied too much on slowdowns, not yet mention high tier killers, strong addon and tunneling just to hope getting at least 2K.
3 -
For whatever reason I never saw a notification for this, maybe because it was edited?
I think it sounds like you are conflating 'gen charges' and 'seconds spent on a gen'. At the same time it might just be the phrasing you are using in prior posts as well as this one. My examples are 2 duo'd gens versus 2 solo'd gens (both examples having gens progressed by 2 Survivors).
As far the whole kick vs linger vs free hit I agree in that it is game sense. This, IMO, still is advantageous for the Killer. They can choose to chase Surv 1, chase Surv 2, fake out one Surv to chase the other Surv, or kick a gen for some value (NTH/Eruption/Pop/etc.) at the cost of giving the Survivors free distance. The Killer making a mistake there is on the Killer to make, but a Survivor making a mistake is compounded due to 2 Survivors are there to potentially make a bad call. When I play Killer, all my mistakes are my own to be punished for and learn from, so I don't find it objectionable to lose because of that. Essentially in a 1v1 the better decision wins, but with grouped gens, it would be like playing Rock Paper Scissors and you get to pick which opponent you go against after the throws are revealed. I just think the Killer being able to always choose to chase the weaker Survivor, or the Survivor in the weaker setup, will always tip the scales in the Killer's favor. Essentially we are assuming competency on the Killer's part, as you wouldn't expect a STBFL Killer to turbo tunnel out the Obsession and say it is a dead perk due to that.
I used to think more efficient with more Survs would be better, but then two things stood out as to ruin that. The first was the Deadlock counterplay is to group on gens, and now it is hyperefficient to do so. There could even be a meme build (that would win games) of Vigil/Poised/Sprint Burst where 3 people Sprint Burst (hidden due to poised) and practically insta-pop each gen (and recover their exhaustion in time due to Vigil) while the 'Runner' pre-drops every pallet. The second was bad spawns are made more punishing as if all 4 spawned in shack and the Killer is crossmap, they would pop the gen in 15s (at 150% efficiency per Surv). You literally can't crossmap in that time unless you are Blight or the likes, and the advantage for Killer of Survivors being grouped wouldn't come to fruition unless you are Plague or Legion basically. Maybe if they spawned apart, but it could still run afoul of problem 1. The only 'maybe' thing was exclusively solo gens should probably be still 90s to complete by default. The cost of only 1 gen spot might be too punishing on certain maps when you can run into 2-3 of them.
1 -
But that is not what you said.
You missed the "And when talking about those "106 seconds" people refer precisely that those two survivor could have done 106 charges in two gens" part.
Sharpshooter fallacy.
You do. When you bring these factors up as argumentation for why splitting up is not more efficient. If you mention these factors in that discussion, you are either tossing in completely random commentary that is entirely unrelated to the subject matter, or you are bringing it up as an argument.
Bringing arguments because my point is that even if it is not as efficient as splitting up, in some cases grouping up is more beneficial. Doesn't means that I'm arguing that splitting up is not more efficient in any moment.
Strawman fallacy and a possible "black and white" fallacy, as you are treating this whole thing as the only options are one being better than the other at all times.
So yeah, that's you claiming that survivors grouping up is not better for the killer, which by nature of the game also means it's not worse for survivors.
No, that's me pointing out that it is highly debatable because there are cases where grouping up is more beneficial, and after that I argumented why.
Strawman and sharpshooter fallacy, as you are cherry picking that first statement without taking in count the following arguments I made and distorting what I said in first place.
To quote:
Yeah, it's precisely there where all your arguments and fallacies break apart, as you keep insisting that I said that grouping up is always better and / or more efficient when in there I made clear that my point was that even if that is true, in a real match there are points and situations where securing a gen faster is better.
Anyway, you still fail to point out how in any part of this... :
... I argued that:
- A) Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
- B) Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up because "But the killer could find one of the survivors!"
As that is what you was accusing me of.
Because that is the only scenario you considered in the situation and specifically because it is the one that best supports your argument.
False. You are lying, as after I gave that example I said this:
"In a real case, you have to count walk times, healing times, countermeasures time, chase time as a survivor being chased is unable to put any charges or time in doing any of the other things, and of course regression."
I never based my statements in just that specific example I gave.
So, another sharpshooter fallacy.
The reality is that this can also snowball for the killer because having a lot of survivors together is a recipe for the killer getting lots of pressure.
And where I argued the contrary?
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you are handwaving the scenario where it doesn't happen.
That doesn't even make any sense. If I didn't know you, I would say you are going for an "Ambiguity of language" fallacy this time.
Because 3genning is where grouping up is practised most and it was the core of Skull Merchant's gameplay before her rework. Did you miss the whole 'Chess Merchant' debacle?
It specifically showed that it was more than feasible for the killer to pressure a generator when it is being targeted by multiple survivors, showing that what you list as an advantage to grouping up isn't necessarily one.
So let me get this straight, first you accuse me of sticking to just one scenario, a "handwave best-case" one, to support my argument... and you do that exact same thing now? Specially with an scenario where we had an specific killer involved and can't be applied generally?
Come on, dude... it isn't even relevant for the main point of the argument. 3 genning has nothing to do with survivors grouping or splitting up, as a killer would chose 3 gens and defend them till the end game whatever survivors try to do those gen or not, or if the survivors are the ones leaving those 3 gens it would not matter if they left them for the end splitting or grouping up.
I don't even know what kind of fallacy you had tried to make here. Probably a false correlation.
And in practice, as killer, you are not going to get both of those gens regressing at the same time unless they are right on top of one another. And even then you're going to have a rough time. I need to remind you that in these scenarios, there may be two survivors, but there's only one killer, and he's not kicking both gens at the same time.
Special pleading, you were wrong so now you are trying (keyword being trying) to move the goalpost to... I don't even know.
What you said here has nothing to do with what you wrongfully claimed first and my counter argument to it. But the funny thing is that by your one logic there, again, only one gen is getting kicked and only other survivor is progressing a gen, so it is still -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s total, not 2.
Also, funny that you made half of your arguments about accusing me of using a handwaved best-case scenario to support my claims, and now you did it not only once, but two times.
Unless, of course, there's more than one gen left to do, in which case the grouped up team gave the killer the time it took to clear the backlog, plus however long it takes them to catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do.
I don't even know what you are trying to argue with this. "Catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do"?...
We're not talking about a set amount of time, we're talking about the amount of time it would take to clear a 30 charge regression.
Exactly, which means that two survivors would do it in 17.65 seconds, which according to you all means 17.65 charges lost that the second survivor should had pump in another gen... your point?
And stop with the 'nothing guarantees they can put in the 30 seconds' because nothing guarantees you can put in the 17.65 seconds either! That's the problem! Stop saying I'm lying about you using that as an argument, and then, in the very same post, make the same argument again!
Your lie is that I'm saying that those 17.65 seconds can't be lost as well, and you are lying about it again here. And I keep saying it, because the ones that talk as those other 30 seconds of progress in a second gen are guaranteed are you, as that is the main point of your argument, than splitting is always better than grouping up because splitting up would mean the double of charges in total pumped up in gens, which is always correct mathematically speaking, not as much in a real match.
That's the whole point of this conversation. You are saying "Scoring a goal every 40 seconds is the most efficient way to win a soccer match, so we should always go to attack everytime", and I'm saying "But in a real soccer match, the other team would not let you do that many shots or even get close to the goalpost, so sometimes is better to keep the ball and pass it until you get the opportunity", and you are disagreeing with this because your sole objective is prove me wrong.
Stop it.
What? You don't like your lack of logic and constant use of fallacies being pointed out?
Oh, I'm sorry, did you need me to go through the entire list and explain, point by point, why everything you mention applies to both splitting up and grouping up?
No need to, as I never claimed that anything I said didn't apply to the other, as I have pointed out multiple times.
But next time, it would be nice if you stopped with the sharpshooter fallacies and didn't cherry picked what I'm saying. Or even better, not argument with fallacies at all.
I thought it was everyone BUT you that didn't understand the game!
Never claimed such thing, less so when I stated multiple times that people are right in what they are saying.
I mean, you did say that two people on the same gen saves 37 seconds and implied that that wasn't a co-op penalty.
And how is that me having problems with the mathematical theory of splitting up being more effective in total times, exactly?
The only one where that applies is regression, but you did also mention movement, chases, and even healing for some reason.
... re-read the post, and told me exactly how in the context I said that has anything to do with what you are saying.
But no, regression is not the only drawback that applies for the simple reason that, in your own words, "everything that could happen when splitted up could also happen grouped up", except when splitting up the killer has 90 second before a gen is done to mess with it and disrupt the survivors in it, while grouping up only gives him from 41 to 53 seconds depending on the number of survivors in it without even counting progression boosters.
A simple enough concept to understand, but here we are.
Along with the nebulous 'countermeasures'.
Pinhead's box? Plague's cleaning? Pig's inverted traps? Wesker and Nemesis's chests? What is so nebulous about you having to invest extra time on those things outside of just pure gen fixing?
This is mentioned to contrast with the mathematical efficiency of spreading. This would be irrelevant if it does not change the balance of efficiencies. Therefor, you mentioning these factors means you are including them as reasons as to why splitting up is NOT more efficient.
However, walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time are all either neutral, or in favour of splitting up. This is what I mean with you applying these conditions to a split-up scenario, but not to a group-up scenario. And as illustrated above, even regression doesn't fully favour grouping up.
Wrong. Here is where you are wrong and why your main argument is a strawman fallacy.
I never said that "splitting up is NOT more efficient" than grouping up. Ever. In any moment of the conversation I said that.
What I said is, again, that when all those factors are in place (in other words, in any normal day match), splitting up is not always the best option even if it is the most charge per second efficient thing to do. And splitting up is not always the best option, even if it is more efficient, for the reasons I already gave. That's what you are distorting and making fallacies around non stop to base your arguments on.
Also, explain to me how "walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time" are "either neutral, or in favour of splitting up" in the 100% of the cases.
The fact that you mentioned walk time specifically illustrates this well, which is why I made it an example of your oversight. To help you understand your mistake.
Again, how and why it illustrate that well or how it is a proof that I'm mistaken in saying that "I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen".
For someone with a fetish for the term 'fallacy', you do sure like to court Ad Hominems a lot.
An Ad hominem is when you use an attack to somebody as an argument instead of responding to the point they made.
In other words, saying that you have the tendency of derailing and distort the main argument after I already argumented all of my points against your fallacies is not an ad hominem, is stating a fact.
0 -
I'm done with you.
You have no idea what the discussion is about, you have no idea what you are saying, you have no idea what the subject is, you lose track of what you're talking about halfway through a post, you lie about what you're saying, you misunderstand your own points and arguments, you deliberately misrepresent scenarios and yell fallacy whenever you don't understand something.
You need to read your own stuff and think about what you are saying. I am not going to keep going over it with you.
Least of all with you taking that high horse position all the time to feed your own ego. Get over yourself.
5 -
... and your point with all of this is what, exactly... ?
Either way, there are some inconsistencies in your explanation:
- If that Rebecca and Kate would have go back to the gen instead of going to the other side of the map, by the time you found again Ripley, downed, hooked, and get back, they would had finished that gen or have it so advanced that your only option to defend it (not the best one, but still an option) would had being, again, lose time by staying near it while letting both go if you didn't catch any of them instantly (something you probably would do as by the number of totems and hook in the match both of them were affected by Plaything).
- Ripley obviously had self healing, she didn't need anyone to heal her even if it is not the most time efficient way of healing yourself, so she would have no need to find anybody. And the only reason you got her there was because she was Oblivious and didn't hear you coming. If she hasn't that would had being another possible chase and more time not pressuring the gens, which would had give Rebecca and Kate to do more gen progress.
- Tell me how "Hex: Plaything" is not an indirect slow down perk.
So, if this is proof of anything is that those survivor could have done it better.
0 -
GG, have a nice day.
0 -
I like how you put every reasons from survivors' bad and I use the perks so I could down. To make up the reasons you have to use meta in hope for winning.
It is a proof that, you could have be better to not relied on meta.
4 -
Good advise. Totally agree with it. Not know what me using meta have to do with anything, but fair enough.
0 -
There is a total of 243 perks in the game 131 for a total of 39 survivors and 112 for a total of 33 killers, this mean: no, you main role don't need to get something if the other one do (for both nerf and buff) the game need to be balanced across both roles and across all characters (no nurse you are special we all know that)
0
